Another Fool for Christ

You know what I mean, though. You are usually taking the side of the conservative Christian on this board...wether forced or volunteered. Comments directed towards you in this thread are usually directed to people like me (bad people), not like you.

 

Tradition, heritage and historical precedent were only accepted because that Christianity was ubiquitous among American society. As far as other religions for most of US history other religions have had very little presence and impact. Yes there were Native American religions but the American Indians had very little say in US society and by the time of the founding of the US were already a rapidly declining minority in the original 13 states and very soon to be in all of the Continental US. Also its a total mistaken view that previously most Native Americans and those of other religions were pleased to live with the wide spread use of Christian symbols and Christianity by the Fed and State governments. There have been several instances of Native Americans resisting Christianity by practicing their religion even though many of them underwent forced conversions to Christianity. The point is that through most of US history there weren't many followers of other religions in the US to complain and for the most part the Christian majority ignored complaints of followers of other religions. In fact it was considering a good thing by most Americans at one point to force the Native Americans to convert to Christianity.

Again you are ignoring the historical context where there were few of other religions to complain and at the sametime the Christian majority for a large part ignored those complaints. Historically too there have been complaints by Native Americans and Jewish groups. I've heard first hand from people here how Minneapolis up until the 1960's was very anti-semitic and how Jews would be marginalized and taunted for not going along with Christian prayers in schools or even how during highschool sports teams from more Jewish friendly St. Paul would be taunted as being unChristian. Just because you haven't heard of people complaining doesn't mean that those of other religions were happy about seeing Christianity and Christian symbols being celebrated through public institutions like government and public education.

Its not a matter of changing the motives of those placing the displays its that the majority Christian population didn't realize that there was a controversy and its taken a greater presence and a greater outspokenness among those of other religions to wake people up to that. Again at one point Christian was synomous with "civilized" which is why people would call someone a "Christian Man" as a someone who behaved civilly or would refer to even non-Christians who were civil and peaceful as behaving in a "Christian manner" You're argument comes down to the beign that silence implies consent and since there were few complaints prior to the 1970's that most people of other religions were totally accepting of Christian symbols. Again there weren't many of other religions to complain and those that did like Native Americans were generally ignored.

Again this goes back to the ubiquitous nature of Christianity what was controversial though was which denomination of Christianity and the Founders were very leery in regard to one denomination over the other. The US population at the time was almost 100% Christian and European since Native Americans weren't granted citizenship. Again there weren't others around to complain much.

I've read the Jeffereson's letter to the Bishops of Danbury and I believe the wall of separation fits perfectly into this context because it was to assuage the Bishops that the Government would be neutral inregards to religion. Again the difference has to do with that Christianity was ubiquitous so there was no controversy over a general Christian view just over denominations. Remember these are the same people who tolerated slavery and saw no controversy over denying women the right to vote or native Americans citizenship. Yes original intent is important but at the same time you have to understand context of the time which was very different than now.

One other thing you also need to consider is that while the First Ammendment is a restriction on Congress the 14th Ammendment has extended that to the States. Again while it is important to understand the original intent you can't ignore what happened then or understand the difference between our society now and the society that the founders dealt with.

The genius of the founders was that the principles they established were ones that could be adapted to changing circumstances so we can understand that the rights of freedom can be extended to blacks, Native Americans and even women which were not extended at the time of the writing of the Constititution. At the same time the principal of the wall of separation goes beyond a discussion of Christian denominations to a consideration of Christianity on par with the diverse religious population that we have now.

[EDIT]
Just wanted to add to that I was thinking about the issue of display of Christian symbols in regard to history and art and I will agree that there is a tradition of the use of Christian symbols and that it would be a travesty to do away with Christian symbols that have historical value, such as a cross on a war memorial. I think intent when Christian symbols are used on official government property needs to be carefully looked at. For instance the depiction of the Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the USSC building is clearly not an endorsement of Christiainity since its depicted with other law givers and above them all is the Roman Goddess of Justice. At the same time the display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courthouse was an endorsement of Christianity since the very point of it was to say that US law derived from Judeo-Christian laws and that we need to return to Judeo-Chrisitian law.[/EDIT]

 

Another excellent writing by Sishir, are you by any chance history or philosophy prof?

 

Thanks pirc and no I'm not a history or philosophy prof just a guy who stayed at a Holiday Inn last night..

 

Sishir- I agree great post. I like your posts because I respect the logic of your points. But I still think we are addressing separate issues.

Your issue (I think) is that the more non Christians in the nation the more reaction there will be to a Christian bias or preference. And the more these minority religions or faiths or philosophies will want protection from government promotion of Christianity. I couldn't agree more. That is the reality of our day.

My issue is that we can't assume that minority 'faiths' always viewed these expressions as dangerous or wrong or un-Constitutional. In fact they may have had the perception that Christian=American.


1. I understand the point of Christian bias due to the ubiquitous nature of Christianity and the smaller amount of minority 'faith' earlier in history. My point was not that other faith's didn't 'have' to accept Christian symbols-(like it or leave it) my point is that at those times in our nations history those in the minority (especially immigrants) could easily equate Christian symbols=American culture. Therefore there could actually be acceptance of these displays based upon culture and heritage. Not acceptance based upon a feeling of oppression or force.
2. I am Mexican American, in our culture we have viewed Roman Catholic=Christian, however I was raised in a protestant home. In public school on occassions we recited the Our Father, however I never knew it as the Our Father, I knew it as the Lord's Prayer. I wasn't religious personally though and I thought it was just the 'American' thing to do. No one told me I should protest it because it was a promotion of religion and quite frankly it did not promote anything in my mind. Saying a Christian prayer at school or a football game or even on the floor of Congress was American culture to me.
3. Now the original intent of all these expressions and every other display of Christianity in public may have been to promote the religion. But the fact that so many early displays and expressions were allowed on government and public property could be interpreted also at those times that government viewed these expression as being protected by the 2nd amendment not prohibited (that has to be a given since they weren't challenged in court at the time).
4. I oppose forced conversions to Christianity. I oppose federal laws that legislate Christianity. I oppose forcing others to do anything of faith and conscience.
I oppose a theocracy in America.
5. I also oppose taking away religious dispays and expressions of any faith. If a judge in Alabama wants to put a Buddha in his courtroom I'm fine.
6. I don't like the 14th amendment- many feel it was illegally ratified. So sometimes I think with a pre-14th amendment mindset, sorry.

My whole point was that what early Puritans, Pilgrims, Congregationalists, Quakers, Presbyterians etc etc embedded into the American culture could have been seen just that way by those of minority faith- culture and heritage. Christian displays may NOT have been offensive to them, they may not have cared in the least and they may have just seen them as 'American'.

To the Native American they saw alot of ugly 'American', but it was not Christian. They certainly may have seen the 'Christian' displays as symbols of aggression, oppression and hate. That I can understand also.

I still don't think you can assume that in our history minority faiths felt oppressed by the Christian majority. I still think there is room to also assume they could equate Christianity in government as culture and feel absolutely no need at all to run to federal court pleading Jefferson's over quoted letter to the Baptists. (I think many people believe his letter is an amendment in the Constitution)

A pastor's biased opinion at best.

 

BTW- in our church I don't preach on ID, evolution, separation of Church and State, etc (now they may get mentioned or touched on, or I am asked questions by members, but I don't remember them being issues at church)

I try to preach from the Bible and matters of Christian faith and discipleship.

I feel no need to crusade for most of these issues (abortion being the exception).

I D&D for enjoyment and to offer my opinions. I empathized with those Christians who are passionate about these issues and I support them- even the James Dobsons at times (some times OK), but I never felt my 'calling' was to preach issues.

I feel my calling is to preach the Bible.

I want to prepare people to meet God. I don't address that often enough in this forum. (reason being- I don't know if D&D is the way to change peoples minds- love and faith plays such a huge part in communicating Christianity)

That is why I have enjoyed so much the times I have had lunch with Clutchfan'ers
People are awesome, I love them, but be warned, God put this love in my heart.

 

It isn't. A non religious person and a religious can't have a real argument or debate about religious issues. The reasons that each party uses is irrelevant and often times unaccepted by the other side. You can't really talk about existence of God, because a Christian will say "I know God is alive because he speaks to me in a way which I feel" and a non Christian will say "that's baloney". There isn't really much you can do after that sort of exchange. I think thats the problem that confuses many of those who have involved themselves in politics. They are trying to use secular means to achieve Christ's goal which can only lead to inevitable failure.

Besides I'm not naieve enough to think that my typed words can make someone decide to change their whole life Only God can do that.

 

and giddyup, I apologize for misintepreting your words. Obvious overreaction on my part, and I hope you realize that I have poop for brains sometimes.

 

I'm for the discussion side,
it is the debate side I don't feel would profit.

And the debate side will dominate IMHO.

(I am thinking this issue over though)

 

No need for explanation. I think I understand where you are coming from and while I may not agree with all of your views I respect and appreciate the humble and civil way you approach things and anyway this wouldn't be the D & D if we didn't bring up controversial subjects that we didn't normally deal with on a daily basis.

I'll try to get back to your other posts when I have more time to think about it.