Re: Christian nation? Not now, not ever



On Oct 12, 1:07 am, OrangeDood <gocincinn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
By Tom Blackburn, Palm Beach (Fla.) Post

Sen. John McCain spoke in religious code. Sadly for him, he didn't
know the code.

First, in an interview on Beliefnet, he tried this: "I would probably
have to say, yes, that the Constitution established the United States
of America as a Christian nation." Self-selected spokesmen for Jews,
Muslims and atheists expressed shock and dismay even as they added
Sen. McCain's name to the text of their next fund-raising letters.

He tried to chip out of the rough last week by saying that he meant
to say that this is a "Judeo-Christian nation."

The United States is a nation rooted in Judeo-Christain values with a
secular government.


What he originally seemed to be trying to say is that, all things
being equal, he would prefer to elect Christians.

Trying to put words in someone else's mouth to make a point is a bit
lame.


Considering his family and career, he undoubtedly also would like to
elect Navy vets. But all things are rarely equal. Given a choice
between Richard Nixon of the Navy and Dwight Eisenhower of the Army,
the former naval officer no doubt would go with the other branch.

So did McCain support Jimmy Carter?


Realistically and religiously, McCain's vote will depend on which
Christian and which "other" are running. "Christian nation" as a
signal phrase is insider jargon for people who consciously or
unconsciously support a theocracy in which they get to be God's
interpreters.

Or he's just being factually accurate, afterall, the United States is
also a "white" nation and a nation of "European" heritage.


A recent plague of authors writes that the United States was founded
by Christians to be a Christian nation and was one until the Supreme
Court took God out of the Constitution. They cite each other and bend,
twist or ignore history as needed. The Jews, Muslims and atheists who
reacted to McCain knew about that; McCain evidently didn't.

It's not inaccurate to call the U.S. a Christain nation given that is
the majority religion, but the founders tended to direct their energy
more towards God than Christ.

I'm glad to see the writer admit that it was the courts, and not the
founders who took away state religions. Good for him since the
intent of the U.S. Constitution was to prevent the Federal Government
from establishing a state religion, not the States.


Early non-native Americans were nominally Christian - Protestant, to
be exact. That is true. That is also as far as it goes. When Catholics
came in droves in the mid-19th century, they were greeted by the
majority or a dominant minority not as fellow Christians but as
reprobate "papists."

Can't see the point here other than the usual Catholic/Protestant
bickering brought over from the old country.


The body of the Constitution does not have a mention of God, not even
in the Preamble, where you might expect one. It refers to religion
once - to prohibit any "religious test (requirement)" for public
office. The Bill of Rights added a bar against Congress establishing a
religion or interfering with one. That's all the Constitution says on
the subject.

Yup, and as originally written that only applied to the Federal
Government, not the States.


Our third president was elected after a campaign in which opponents
Swift-boated him as a devout atheist.

So is the writer claiming that swift-boaters are correct and thus John
Kerry dishonored vets or is it only true when it suits his needs to
make a claim he can't otherwise support?

The thesis of this article is completed destroyed at this point. If
you are going to base it on the claim that Jefferson was an atheist,
then at least one should explain why Jefferson's personal motto was
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God".


Our fifth president, as far as
anyone can tell, really was an atheist. Both were elected when the
numbers of Catholics and Jews in the population were minuscule.
"Christian" principles of the country at their time included the slave
trade and, a little later, Indian extermination. Those are hardly
affirmations of the Fatherhood of God.

Slavery isn't a "Christain" principle, unlike the abolishion movement.


By the mid-1950s, Jews had won places in business, military services,
Congress and on the Supreme Court, if not in the best country clubs.
We started styling ourselves "Judeo-Christian" in a nod to
sociological reality. The "Christian nation" advocates, who came along
later, want to go back to something older than that.

It can be easily demonstrted that the "Judeo-Christain" term is rooted
in the 1700s. This writer needs to be willing to research things he
might not agree about before making the above claim.



It is hard to explain what "Judeo-Christian" means other than belief
in principles that begin - and maybe end - with the Ten Commandments.
The drive to post the Ten Commandments in every uncovered public space
represents a pathetic effort to cling to whatever the advocates think
it means.

The Ten Commandments fit the United States like $10 shoes, from the
first, where we install the "almighty" dollar as an idol, to the last,
when we rely on covetousness to turn the wheels of commerce. We keep
the Sabbath holy by shopping for bargains and allow and excuse false
witness for advertising and political spin. We have been casual about
killing for a nation that believes in "Thou shall not kill."

And as for adultery, we apparently couldn't have a Congress without
it. Beyond all that, we revere the Ten Commandments to shreds.

Jews were in this country in numbers for about 100 years before the
United States became "Judeo-Christian." Given current demographic
trends, within another 100 years we can proudly declare ourselves
"Judeo-Christian-Muslim."

It will be another label that can't withstand much serious scrutiny.

The underlying premise of "Judeo-Chirstain" is "We are endowed by our
Creator with certain unalienable rights." which is far more preferable
to "We are granted our rights by the king". I would also contend
that "Judeo-Christain" does mean not establishing a government based
on religion as both see the kingdom of heaven as supreme and whatever
kingdom man establishes on earth will always be flawed. Life on
earth is to be tolerated and is imperfect. Islam on the other hand
does address establishing an earthly kingdom ruled by the Koran so the
writer might just as well say and "apples-pears-oranges" nation.

I think Christains do get this wrong as well, but then, when they go
through public school systems that spew poorly researched crap like
the above, it's not wonder they are confused.

.