Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

"The man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude toward the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf. And it is my earnest prayer that we may so conduct ourselves as to merit a continuance of those blessings with which we have hitherto been favored." - George Washington

"I have lived sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And, if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.;

"I firmly believe this; and I also believe, that, without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel;...

"I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers, imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business: and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." (Benjamin Franklin as quoted by Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, 1837, pp. 155-56)

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles." - George Washington, Farewell address

"God rules this world. It is the duty of nations as well as men to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow... and to recognize the sublime truths that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." - Abraham Lincoln

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution." (James Madison, The Federalist, No. 37)

Okay, I'm done.

...I just made a rant with virtually nothing but quotes.

Fricken' A.

That first quote was rather from a winners vantage point. And I don't like the way he focused on the event (rather than the outcome). Surely the events featured lots of people being killed and dying in horrible ways.

The interesting thing is actually that the "events" which "featured lots of people being killed and dying in horrible ways" (to use your own words) were almost completely on the side of the revolutionaries. But it was war, and they were fighting for their freedom, so they felt that such sacrifices were worth it; and their continued survival, their victories, and the end of the war itself were seen as blessings from God. We are so far distant from those times that all we can see now is the outcome. When you are embroiled in it, the outcome is hardly felt, you remember instead the events. How many events in your own life do you remember clearly, but the outcome barely sinks in? I have many more memories from the matches in my high school wrestling tournaments than I do from any of the winners circles, even the few I was a part of.

Funny how you can pick these out, Mea, and yet I know many people think GW's the only President who expresses God openly in his governance. Why weren't these great men in the past "forcing God down our throats?" Is the difference only a matter of perspective (that happened long ago, and this is now) or simply that these people are uninformed?

It's a difference in time, av. Secularism and atheism wasn't held by any significant number of people at that time, nor other major religions, especially because many of the first immigrants to America were Puritans escaping persecution by other Christians, and subsequent immigrants were Christians as well. However, now that there are significant numbers of people who are not Christian, we can not try to say "because we were a religious/Christian nation, we should be now too." (though I know you and Mea are not arguing the last half of that sentence, but some people do, so this is directed to them).

For one, the idea of a theocracy is completely un-American. The reason the first amendment was so dire and important was because the people who founded the colonies and fought for independence escaped England, a government where the Church of England had the power to punish and abuse anyone who didn't believe. The last thing they wanted was to have that happen again here. They left everything general so as not to offend the different denominations that lived here.

So anyway, yes, if you want, you could argue we were once a Christian nation. But... so what? What bearing does that, or should that, have today?

You could argue that the decline in our society is because we are no longer a "Christian Based Country". But it's "un-American" now to claim we should be any Religion based country because of our "freedom of religion".

What you must understand, Kinuki, is that these people did not see God as a debatable term that a few people believe in and a few people do not. There were non-Christians (Deists and such) in Colonial America, have no doubt. You see, we are so muddled in these modern questions of "Is there really a God" That we do not realize the consequences of if there is or isn't like these people did. We think "OK, if there's a God, I need to change my ways," not "If there's a God, this is what we, as a nation, should do." The Founding Fathers are right- if the God of the Bible exists, those nations who ally with Him will be blessed, and those who do not will be destroyed. (I'm not going to debate the morals of this, BTW, I don't feel like taking that turn.) To them, God was a factual being that was, in a sense, not so different from another nation they should ally themselves with, given the consequences of war against Him.

Edit: To Sage: You really struck a chord there. Words like "Un-American" or "Undemocratic" can be bent so many ways its not even funny. See "Harrison Bergeron" for more info.

Mmm, an interesting point, Kinuki. And it's true, at America's founding, secularism wasn't the force it is now. I'll agree wholeheartedly -- a theocracy is un-American, and the freedom of religion clause in the Bill of Rights is very important. Christians in general should argue against any sort of Christian theocracy. We've had de-facto Christian theocracies in our past, and they proved to be horrifying mistakes. In point of fact, Christian values establish a separation of Christianity from the political sphere ("Give to Caeser what is Caeser's and to God what is God's"). That does not mean that political decisions should be completely without influence, but that is because the ideal Christian is a different person, someone who strives to be better -- fair, even-handed, generous -- because that is what God demands of them, not because the religion tells them they should rule in some manner.

Laws come from somewhere. America is based, from a legal standpoint, on fairly Christian values, something I'm sure you're personally pleased at. Christianity demands an equality before the law, and denies that Christians are "better" in some way (despite what some Christians will tell you -- PM me if you want me to come up with some nice Bible verses you can use for ammunition against them. I said before that Christians strive to be better people, not that they are intrinsically better human beings). The moral guidelines behind Christianity are generally very good -- they are nonexclusionary ("Peter, call nothing that I, the Lord, have made unclean") and solid morally (the Ten Commandments, et al.) without having the legal, "secular," depth of Judaic or Islamic law. As what is called a "traditional Conservative," I subscribe to the belief that mankind is not inherently good, and needs guidance from somewhere, which is why we have laws. Since no human moral compass can be trusted absolutely, the moral compass that guides the creation of laws needs to be something outside of humanity. Christianity happens to be a very good choice, and the one which was used at the creation of this Country.

I'd say it is relevant today because to forget your past, the things that made you great, the things that guided you before, is a mistake -- as they say, forget the past and you're doomed to repeat it. I'll allow that we cannot allow ourselves to be mired in the past; that is just as dangerous a mistake, however we cannot simply disregard what came before us because "this is a different time in history."

agreed avwolf. I hate it when people say "It's a different century now, so that doesn't count." It's like we expect that, with enough computers and iPhones, that we will eventually stamp out the evils of human nature. The truth is, the only thing different about this century is that we can't see three seconds in front of our faces. What with all this "Live your life the way you want to" crap, and while I'll admit, people have followed through with that philosophy since time immemorial, very few had actually stated it as their philosophy, and now a large portion of the world does. Thing is, before now people contemplated the consequences of there being this type of god, or that type, or no god at all. They wondered about the moral problems that would arise would God happen to indeed be, say, a large green Buddha, in the stead of the Lord. Now, we just wonder "Is there a God?" and "Does that mean I'm going to Heaven or Hell?" We're so self-centric it's mind-boggling. And since we're so self-centric, we don't pause to think- "Wait! Would God like our nation?" or "Does God approve of this idea or that one?" No, we think, "I hope I'm not going to Hell. Hell is bad."

Who knows what the problem is. Bradbury said we were too distracted. Orwell thought it might be propaganda. Vonnegut thought it might be we try to be *too* equal. Huxley didn't even see it as a problem.

And I've veered way off the track, so I'm going to stop myself right now.

Those who help themselves and others first shall be blessed V.S. thoses that ask for everything and do nothing or repress other for their own gain.

It's all I could think of to comment on what was being said but it also says a lot and so many people only hear what they want to instead of really listening. that is one of the main problems I believe has caused us to go down this road. We stopped Listening to each other.

(I'm sorry if this doesn't make sence to anyone on what I am saying but then your not listening are you.)

I would like to note that Judaism has no concept of heaven and hell, so saying that those ideas keep morality is a bit insulting to those religions that don't subscribe to Christian beliefs.

There were a fair number of Jews in the foundation of America. The Adamses were Unitarian (which, at that time meant atheist [this was the essence of an attack on Quincy by Jackson]).

Lincoln attacked the idea of deciding policy with religion. He said that if a priest was asked whether slavery was moral according to the bible, and he found that the bible was neutral on the subject, would the priest pick the answer in which he would continue to be served or the answer requiring him to get up and get his own damn stuff?

Let me give you some new quotes:

"If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death."
Blackmail and entrapment.

"If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death."
Due process, innocent until proven guilty, prosecuting for perjury, libel, slander, and malicious lawsuit.

"If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement. "
All you have to do is look at the Duke fiasco, which is the same as this, except that it is the prosecutor.

" If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death."
Charging tax evaders and accomplices to crimes.

"If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an [censored] or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death."
This is standard legal procedure (except for the death part).

"If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say 'A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses,' and if the owner of the thing say, 'I will bring witnesses who know my property,' then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony—both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant.
If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost article.
If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.
If the witnesses be not at hand, then shall the judge set a limit, at the expiration of six months. If his witnesses have not appeared within the six months, he is an evil-doer, and shall bear the fine of the pending case."
This sounds like how our current legal system would handle it.

"If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death."
Kidnapping.

"If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried."
Breaking and entering.

"If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death."
Though shalt not steal plus due process (it stipulates "and if caught").

"If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and . . . on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him for the goods stolen."
Insurance?

"If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire."
This seems to be public opinion on extortionists.

"If a chieftain or a man (common soldier), who has been ordered to go upon the king's highway for war does not go, but hires a mercenary, if he withholds the compensation, then shall this officer or man be put to death, and he who represented him shall take possession of his house."
Besides the resemblance to practices during the civil war (as I've been skipping antiquated American laws, such as the section upon which I suspect the fugitive slave act was based), this resembles American policy on breeching contracts and dirt-bag employers.

"If a chieftain or man be caught in the misfortune of the king (captured in battle), and if his fields and garden be given to another and he take possession, if he return and reaches his place, his field and garden shall be returned to him, he shall take it over again."
This was in the news lately. Some soldiers are charging that they were fired because they went on military leave (the law seems to be similar to maternity). Property protections exist for soldiers and P.O.W.s.

"If a chieftain or a man be caught in the misfortune of a king, if his son is able to enter into possession, then the field and garden shall be given to him, he shall take over the fee of his father.
If his son is still young, and can not take possession, a third of the field and garden shall be given to his mother, and she shall bring him up."
A trustee (is that the term?) is named for the land, and the guardian takes over if the trustee is under age. The second part sounds like modern inheritance practices.

"If any one take over a field to till it, and obtain no harvest therefrom, it must be proved that he did no work on the field, and he must deliver grain, just as his neighbor raised, to the owner of the field.
If he do not till the field, but let it lie fallow, he shall give grain like his neighbor's to the owner of the field, and the field which he let lie fallow he must plow and sow and return to its owner.
If any one take over a waste-lying field to make it arable, but is lazy, and does not make it arable, he shall plow the fallow field in the fourth year, harrow it and till it, and give it back to its owner, and for each ten gan (a measure of area) ten gur of grain shall be paid."
You can't breech a contract.

"If a man rent his field for tillage for a fixed rental, and receive the rent of his field, but bad weather come and destroy the harvest, the injury falls upon the tiller of the soil."
I'm pretty sure this is the policy on rentals. I am sure that you have to pay for any books or movies you fail to return or you return damaged to the library or Blockbuster.

"If he do not receive a fixed rental for his field, but lets it on half or third shares of the harvest, the grain on the field shall be divided proportionately between the tiller and the owner."
This is so ingrained in our culture that I don't even see why they had to include this.

"If the tiller, because he did not succeed in the first year, has had the soil tilled by others, the owner may raise no objection; the field has been cultivated and he receives the harvest according to agreement."
This seems to be standard. You rent it and can do what you want as long as you return it in no worse condition than it was when you received it.


This is a sampling from just the first 47 laws of The Code of Hammurabi, the first written code of laws in human history. Therefor, the American legal system seems to be born more out of basic common sense than anything in the bible.

But what about the freedoms we hold dear? The values that are evident in the Constitution? The values of our very Founding Fathers?

Yeah, that tiny little thing called "Freedom of Religion." :roll: The mere idea that being a religious based nation is ok or even American is ludicrous. It doesn't just ignore the entire point of the creation of the United States and why the people who emigrated to America left Great Britain, it ignores the rest of recorded human history, all in one convenient sentence. Every theocracy has not only gone horribly awry, its often resulted in terrible human rights violations. Religion should never have political power. The two don't mix well. Further, it's disingenuous to suggest that it would benefit anyone but the people in charge. It certainly doesn't make a nation more "holy." It just means that you have no rights unless you worship the state-sponsored God, and the whole point of Christianity is individual communion with God. It's not about forcing anyone to believe.

And is the irony not plainly evident that we're fighting Islamic extremists and decrying Iran for being a theocracy, yet people are ok with making America a theocracy as well?

You said it's un-American to suggest a theocracy, and I say, darn-straight it is. America is the land of freedom. The right that was fought for hardest by the Founding Fathers was Freedom of Religion. Any change to that, and this is no longer America.

Whoa, that's really starting to sound like the rhetoric of extreme fundamentalists like Phelps. First of all, I find it unlikely God would destroy entire nations because they're not Christian. For one, that'd mean destroying Israel, and that's NOT going to happen. Secondly, it's evident in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, a story touted often by Christians I might add, that God will spare any place that has righteous people in it. God told Lot he would not destroy those cities if he found even one righteous person. With the majority of people being Catholic and Protestant, he would not destroy America.

While the values that the law contains are similar to Christian values, they are not solely found in Christianity. In fact, most organized religions hold life sacred, and forbid killing, stealing, rape, etc. I'd also like to know where Christianity demands equality before the law if people such as as Sage and MeaCulpa are suggesting a theocracy that would most likely not treat non-Christians equally. (But I agree with you, we're all equal.)

Ah, that is where our discrepancy in beliefs lie. I believe we are all inherently good, but capable of evil. I would also suggest that we're capable of self-discipline. There are plenty of places that had not heard of Christianity or its beliefs but still had laws similar to ours.

What's with all this "you have to live according to my beliefs" crap? Besides, I would point out that we all, including you, live the way we want to. You're consciously choosing to be Christian and worship God. That's living your life how you want to.

Because whose God is right? Yours? The Buddhists? The Muslims? The Mormons? The Hindus? We can't answer that. You believe the answer's obvious, that the God of the OT and NT and Father of Christ is the true God. Well, Muslims believe their God is correct too, as much as you do. Because you believe you're right makes you right, or gives you the right to say so?

The question of how we should live our lives is NOT the government's job. It's our job.

Religion is not meant to be something that can be proven right or wrong scientifically or in any other way- it's purely based on faith and each religion says as such. But each one has ups and downs for the most part- most often it is how humans have translated it in many cases giving people the wrong view.

But i think we can all agree- a "religion" based on something written by a Sci-fi writer- who admitted it was all fiction and later retracted his statement AFTER receiving tons of checks for his "church" is not the "one true religion".

*chuckle* I like that, that's a good point. I'm going to have to remember this one. Though it's Abraham pleading with God and they work down to ten, not one; which was why God told Lot to flee the city. Of course, that doesn't work if we're all unrighteous. ;)


This treatment of non-Christians equally is actually ingrained in Christianity. Early Christianity spread only because Christians were kind to the poor and to slaves. For much of the time of the early church, Christians were routinely put to death. Jesus himself started it with his asking a Samaritan woman for a drink. Both "Samaritan" and "woman" have importance here, just especially "Samaritan," as the Samaritans were generally despised by the Jews. Jesus ate with tax-collectors, prostitutes, and other "sinners". None of these people were Christians (at least not initially :P). Unlike Islam, there isn't, to my memory, anything that specifically states a different treatment of nonbelievers (Islam institutes a special tax; I'm not going to argue anything about it here, as Muslims are expected to donate an amount which is arguably similar anyway, depending on who you talk to, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to say more than that believers and nonbelievers have a doctrinally established different treatment under Islam) in Christianity. Christianity has no original history of spreading via force. Our attempts...well, they weren't shining moments and are now widely accepted as horrible deviations and mistakes. I'd try to come up with something very relevant to Christianity and its precepts of not being involved in politics and judging non-Christians (there's a lot of "don't judge people" things in Christianity), but I'm actually helping my best friend move in with his boyfriend, so I don't happen to have my Bible on me. :P


Well, I'm a Conservative and you're a Liberal. The debate over whether mankind is intrinsically good or evil happens to be one of the core disagreements between our philosophies. That's an "agree to disagree" point. It's honestly not even that important, since we agree that people make their own decisions.

You're right, we're capable of self-discipline. It's one of the important distinctions of humanity. Free will cuts both ways; we're not only capable of great good, but also great evil. I am just of the opinion that it takes more to drive people to rise to good than it does to convince people to fall to evil. You don't need to be a Christian to be good or evil; right or wrong. I happen to believe that Christianity encourages good (they're not the only ones) and has a generally reasonable view of what is good and what is evil. Or better yet, what is right and what is wrong. Personally, even as a Christian, I don't think homosexuality is evil; that's just silly. As a Christian I believe that it's wrong, but there's a huge difference between wrong and evil. But, like I said before, my opinion on the matter isn't worth much -- I do many many things that I believe are wrong every day. Homosexuality just doesn't happen to be one of them (much to the chagrin of some of my friends).


There's something we can agree on. :)

How about we just stop arguing, and when god comes back we'll all point and laugh at you guys, and if he doesn't, well then we'll be dead and theres nothing you can say about it :3