Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My friend Chris Rodda has been blasting the "Christian heritage" resolutions that have been submitted in Congress by Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia for years. Those resolutions are chock full of oversimplifications, half-truths and outright lies. During a recent radio appearance, Forbes issued the following challenge:
"I challenge the president or anyone else -- come up, either debate me on this issue or simply tell me where that single moment in time was when you can say we crossed the threshold -- we ceased being a Judeo-Christian nation -- and you can't do it."
And Chris gleefully accepted that challenge publicly:
Well, as an "anyone else," I hereby accept Mr. Forbes's challenge. I want to publicly debate him on his resolution...Mr. Forbes has incessantly touted his footnoting and documentation of all the claims found in the 75 "Whereas" clauses of his resolution, making numerous statements like the following one from his Jodi Hice Show appearance, so he should have no worries at all about defending those claims, right?...
So, Mr. Forbes, just name the time and place -- your turf, my turf (up here in NJ-6), DC, or anywhere else -- and let's debate your resolution clause by clause and see how well that very impressive looking list of footnotes you keep boasting about stands up to scrutiny.
I'll be sending a registered, return receipt letter to Mr. Forbes's office formally accepting his challenge to make sure he knows that I, as an "anyone else," have stepped up to accept it.
This should be fun.
Politics
Comments
I bet Forbes will find some excuse to back out of it; I sure wouldn't want to go up against Chris Rodda armed only with the arrogance of ignorance.
Posted by: sbh | July 29, 2009 3:28 AM
The arrogance of ignorance would mean that he would accept. After all, he must be right because God.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 29, 2009 4:18 AM
Ed & Chris - Will Mr Forbes' humiliation be on YouTube (or the like)? And can you please keep us informed on the time/date of this 'great' debate?
I love a good laugh in the afternoon* - DJ
_________
*Ed - love the 1:00am posts (except when they're an hour late- grrr), it comes just in time for the afternoon coffee break!
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 4:33 AM
Breaking news, Forbes has accepted and set a date. It's the day after Hannity gets himself waterboarded.
Posted by: tincture | July 29, 2009 6:15 AM
I haven't seen Chris in debate, but I do know that you don't understand history if you can't handle nuance and accept the past on its own terms. People like Forbes don't get it and usually can't have it explained to them. So no matter how thoroughly dismantled, he and his fans will probably come away convinced they've won a smashing victory unless they're prepared to change their entire way of understanding history; that's not too likely.
It's hard to clearly win a debate when the two sides are judging by different rules.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | July 29, 2009 6:43 AM
Did you guys know that the Pilgrims had to survive on five grains of corn a day? I read it from a church newsletter...
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 7:01 AM
It is of course trivially true that no one can find such a "moment in time", because we never were a Judeo-Christian nation.
Posted by: Nemo | July 29, 2009 7:07 AM
The point being that nobody could survive on five grains of corn a day, so therefore Jesus was doing a miracle because Jesus loves the USA.
Man, I can't wait for the theocracy to get here, life will be so wonderful!!
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 7:07 AM
I'll go out on a limb here and predict that Forbes will "win" by the simple expedient of making up "facts" from the whole cloth.
It'll come down to Forbes with "and as Thomas Jefferson said, <bogus quotation>" and Rodda trying to say he never did -- but there's no way for Rodda to prove the negative in real time. Thus, Forbes (and Forbes fans) go away with their faith reinforced.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 8:39 AM
The problem with trying to debate assholes like Mr. Forbes is that they engage in the Gish gallop, which is hard to refute unless sound bite responses are prepared in advanced. I don't know if the estimable Ms. Rodda has the time or inclination to do what Ken Miller did before he debated Duane Gish.
Posted by: SLC | July 29, 2009 8:58 AM
You are asking too much from them. Forbes and his kind don't even accept the present on its own terms.
Posted by: xebecs | July 29, 2009 9:17 AM
May I suggest Article VI of the constitution proclaiming that no religious test may be used to determine whether or not a person may serve a positino in government.
OR
The first words of the first sentance of the first amendment.
OR
The Treaty of Tripoli, written my George Washington, signed by John Adams and ratified unanimously which said "As the United States of America is in no way founded upon the CHristian religion . . ."
OR
John Adams proclaiming that "no citezen should be made to paid even a thruppence in support of religion"
OR
Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist where he suggested that "there should be a wall a separation between church and state"
But I'm just riffing here. I'm sure a little bit of research could turn up hundreds of examples. The founding fathers were enlightened men who left their supernatural beliefs at church.
Posted by: GregB | July 29, 2009 9:44 AM
I suspect Forbes won't accept or even acknowledge the challenge. Rodda needs some press; she needs someone in Forbes' hometown newspaper to write an article about her challenge, presenting her as a contender worthy of being debated.
Posted by: Mick | July 29, 2009 9:47 AM
But GregB - those were all put there to test the faith of the Christian Nation, because "god works in mysterious ways."
Just like with birfers, you can't constructively argue with dogmatic religionists (or dogmatists of any stripe).
Posted by: Umlud | July 29, 2009 9:57 AM
Here's the actual letter I sent to Forbes's office, (certified, return receipt so he can't say he didn't know I had accepted his challenge):
Congressman Forbes:
Over the past few months, you have repeatedly, in your May 6, 2009 statement on the floor of the House as well as other forums, asked the questions, “Did America ever consider itself a Judeo-Christian nation?” and, “If America was once a Judeo-Christian nation, when did it cease to be?” The latter of these two questions, of course, is only material if the answer to the former is “yes” – the answer that, in your statements, you presuppose to be correct, basing this presupposition on the claims made in your proposed “Spiritual Heritage” resolution, H. Res. 397.
While promoting H. Res. 397 during your July 1, 2009 radio appearance on The Jody Hice Show, you issued the following challenge:
”I challenge the president or anyone else -- come up, either debate me on this issue or simply tell me where that single moment in time was when you can say we crossed the threshold -- we ceased being a Judeo-Christian nation -- and you can't do it.”
As an “anyone else,” I hereby accept your challenge. I wish to publicly debate you on your resolution and the question of whether or not the United States was ever a Judeo-Christian nation.
You may or may not be aware that last year, when you introduced this same resolution as H. Res. 888, I wrote a series of articles refuting dozens of the claims made in its seventy-five “Whereas” clauses. Immediately upon seeing that you had re-introduced H. Res. 888 as H. Res. 397, I re-posted this series, which consisted of nine articles. The first installment of the series, as well as links to the eight subsequent installments, can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/its-back----randy-forbes_b_197109.html
During your appearance on The Jody Hice Show, you stated that H. Res. 397 “draws a line in the sand,” and that, “We shouldn't be running away from it. We should be talking about it.” I wholeheartedly agree with these statements. Let's talk about it. Let's talk about it publicly, in the form of a debate, as your challenge indicates you are eager to do.
You have repeatedly touted H. Res. 397 as the “most documented resolution...that's been filed in Congress in years because we footnote every single thing that we've put in there,” so, clearly, you should have no reservations whatsoever about letting both the supporters and opponents of this resolution see how well its impressive looking list of footnotes stands up to scrutiny.
Please contact me as soon as possible so we can arrange a debate on this issue.
I can be reached by phone at ***-***-****, by mail at the address at the top of this letter, or by email at ********@militaryreligiousfreedom.org.
Sincerely,
Chris Rodda
Senior Research Director
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 29, 2009 10:19 AM
Good luck Chris.
As an alternative to GregB's list, I'd start making up a list of all the old anti-Jewish laws the States used to have. It is hard to claim judeo-christian status when, for instance, you don't allow the judeos on juries.
Posted by: eric | July 29, 2009 10:49 AM
This debate needs to be about the specific lies in Forbes's resolution, because that's what he keeps using as his "proof" to support his Judeo-Christian nation claim, and these are the lies that he himself is spreading. If you go to the link in my letter to Forbes, you'll see that there's more than enough material there to debate. Of course, I have plenty of other stuff I could throw at him if I need to, but it's the claims in his resolution that he's relying on, so I think those are the ones that need to be demolished.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 29, 2009 11:04 AM
"When did America stop being a Christian nation?"
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
Posted by: chancelikely | July 29, 2009 11:15 AM
Hi Chris
Perhaps you should publish a copy of your letter above in Forbes' hometown paper as a letter to the editor or op/ed? Get it out in public view.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 29, 2009 11:27 AM
Considering how recent the euphemism "Judeo-Christian" is, that's a pretty simple challenge.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 11:37 AM
I actually did email a condensed version of my HuffPo piece (linked to in Ed's post) as a letter to the editor of the Virginia Pilot, but it doesn't look like they ever published it.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 29, 2009 11:38 AM
Chris,
I envision a 'Monkey-Trial' like situation where you lose but get fined a dollar. The local loons get to say they won but everybody knows the score. The similarities are striking (to my mind anyway). And the best part: you get to be Spencer Tracey. I just hope the air conditioning is working :-)
Here's hoping Forbes accepts.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 29, 2009 11:48 AM
Actually, the odds of those coinciding are pretty good.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 29, 2009 12:14 PM
Chris Rodda stated:
"This debate needs to be about the specific lies in Forbes's resolution, because that's what he keeps using as his "proof" to support his Judeo-Christian nation claim, and these are the lies that he himself is spreading."
What do you precisely mean by "Judeo-Christian nation claim"? Do you have an issue with people that base their support for a Liberal Constitutional Republic on a theological view grounded in principles found in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures and the natural law?
I am not a supporter of the politics of the Religious Right at all. I am actually angry at times that they use the whole Christian Nation thesis to promulgate their politics. I also understand that some have used bogus quotes and misinformation to aid their cause. But I would state to you that getting into a quote exchange pissing contest with them:
1. Is not going to prove your overall thesis depending on what Christian nations means
2. Change their minds
I would be more interested in a debate about where the ideas individual rights and liberty came from. A good place to look is who and what influenced John Locke. Most are shocked to know that his whole Two Treatises was started with a biblical refutation of Filmer's writings on the Divine Right of Kings. One story I read(I am not sure if it is true and am checking into it) stated that when the French translated the Two Treatises they left out the first part and that this is the version that made it to America.
While I sympathize with you for having to deal with people that have been indoctrinated since birth to believe things and pass them on without critical analysis because I spent 10 years of my life living with and around them, I in no way think that clearing up some Historical missteps by these types of people will ever even get close to answering if this was a Judeo Christian Nation. Again, depending on what you think this term means.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 12:17 PM
King of Ireland...
This is about a particular resolution introduced by Forbes that contains particular lies -- dozens of them in its 75 "Whereas" clauses. Forbes relies on the claims he makes in this resolution in every speech and appearance in which he poses his "Judeo-Christian nation" question. Therefore, the lies and inaccuracies in his resolution -- his "evidence" -- are what need to be addressed. The debate needs to be about hard facts, and not digress into a battle of opinions or "theses." That never accomplishes anything. An examination of the facts, on the other hand, will prove that his claims are untrue.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 29, 2009 1:01 PM
I won't defend David Barton for his mistakes; and they are many, and I won't defend the resolutions, however, in spite of not currently being a Christian Nation, there is plenty of evidence to argue we were formed a Christian Nation.
1. Religion is left to the States, and those States formed Biblical Christianity as their religion, not heterodox Christianity. The majority of framers were orthodox, with Jefferson saying the most important framers were the ratifiers, excluding himself.
2. Regarding the Constitution, it is not religion neutral, referring to the Lord, and Sabbath, and leaving religious test oaths to the States.
The resolutions may have Barton behind them, therefore have many mistakes.
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 1:14 PM
You really have to love the simple folk who show up to demonstrate what this is all about.
By the way, OFT -- would you mind too terribly pointing us to those references? I couldn't find them, and it'll be real embarrassing if Chris doesn't know about them in time for the debate.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 1:31 PM
It is hard to claim judeo-christian status when, for instance, you don't allow the judeos on juries.
Exactly, and it exposes the hypocrisy of the term. As I have said before, in the mouths of the Forbes of the world, it's code for: Ignore the fact that my religion treated you like shit for 17 centuries; now that we want your votes we'll let you be honorary Christians.
The USA (like most of the Western countries) started as "Christian" in the loose sense that there was a Christian hegemony in society (not the same thing as formal establishment) -- but the Jews were, just as in Europe, a marginally-tolerated minority. It is precisely as and because that hegemony waned; as Jews rose to prominent positions in society; and as Christianity itself morphed into less repressive forms, that it became first feasible, then advantageous, to add the "Judeo" part.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 29, 2009 1:43 PM
I agree with Mick. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Forbes is going to accept this challenge. It was an empty rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the force of his claims.
He will ignore the challenge, and if pressed will say that he meant "any lawmaker" and that he hasn't got the time to debate just anyone off the streets.
The odds of this happening are about as good as Sean Hannity following through with his promise to undergo waterboarding to raise money for the troops' families.
Posted by: tacitus | July 29, 2009 2:07 PM
Chris Rodda stated:
"The debate needs to be about hard facts, and not digress into a battle of opinions or "theses." That never accomplishes anything. An examination of the facts, on the other hand, will prove that his claims are untrue."
Claims about the facts or that America was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation? I have been discussing this issue with Jon Rowe at American Creation for a while now and no one has come up with a definition of what a Christian Nation is on either side yet other than Barton and The Providence Foundation People and from what I have read of both it seems to mean to them a nation infused with principles taken from the Jewish and Hebrew scriptures. But most on the secular side of this take it as Reconstructionist.
Now I might disagree with the principles that Barton and other conservatives choose to use and the others they choose to ignore but I do see these principles in our Founding and one of the cornerstones of much of the philosophy that the founding was based on. (i.e. Locke) I am also of the Aquinas/scholastic train of thought that general revelation(natural law) is a valid path of understanding as well. I find this in Romans 1(maybe to) where it says God can be known through what is made.
Regardless, of the validity of the truth claims, one would have a hard time explaining the ideas behind the founding and ignoring the ideas contained in 2,000 years of Christian thought that are at least somewhat based in the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
It is unfortunate that Barton and company went the route they did to prove their thesis. It is more unfortunate that they used some bad quotes and have sunken the debate into the quagmire it is in now of quote using pissing contests.
The ideas of the Founding did not originate with the Founders. To understand this era one should understand the history of the ideas around it. That is hard to due in the context of the kinds of debates you seem to enjoy having but even if you are proven correct do not prove the thesis itself in the abstract is wrong.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 2:11 PM
By the way, I have read of lot of what OFT believes if it is the same OFT that used to comment at American Creation, and have a lot of disagreements with his ultimate conclusions. Since I know this blog well and the propensity of, at least a few, to lump all Christians together please refrain from blowing off the arguments I made because of guilt by association.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 2:15 PM
The sabbath reference in Article I, section 7, and "The Lord" reference isn't the meat of my argument. It is the State Governing Documents, as religion is left to the States, with a majority of the people I claim were Orthodox Christian.
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 2:24 PM
OFT wrote:
Alright, OFT, let's get to the "meat" of your argument. You say that the U.S. Constitution's "no religious test" clause only applied to the federal government, and that it was left up to the states whether or not to have a religious test in their state. This is true. So now all you need to do is explain why virtually all of the states admitted after the U.S. Constitution was written put the same "no religious test clause" in their state constitutions, many in exactly the same words as the U.S. Constitution. All of those states, writing brand new state constitutions, had a choice, and they chose to copy the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on religious tests and other guarantees of religious freedom.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 29, 2009 2:40 PM
OFT - Help me out here
Must be in invisible ink or something. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 2:49 PM
Hey, there's a great idea for another sequel to "National Treasure." Benjamin Franklin Gates finds a secret coded letter that tells how to reveal all the hidden religious references in the Constitution.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 29, 2009 2:58 PM
I knew OFT would distract from an honest and intelligent discussion. This is the problem. You guys go after obvious garbage(though his point about religion being left to the states is a good one) and ignore the more thoughtful and reasonable responses to your concerns. It is a shame.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 3:05 PM
The sabbath reference in Article I, section 7...
Which says, "...President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall..."
Anyway, it doesn't refer to the "sabbath" but to Sunday (Sunday = "day of the sun") and could just as easily and wrongly be interpreted as a tribute to Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun"), the Roman god of the rising sun and patron god of Constantine and other pagan Roman emperors - you know those FFs, they were big on the Greco-Romans.
Of course if you were thinking the Judeo sabbath (Saturday = dies Saturni or "Saturn's Day") and somehow they got it wrong in the Constitution, then maybe it was a tribute to the Roman god of agriculture, Saturn - you know that wiley Jefferson and his affinity for agriculture.
Or maybe you were thinking the Judeo-Christian sabbath, or as the heathens call it, the weekend (literally meaning to cut the grass and paint the house...maybe BBQ).
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 29, 2009 3:07 PM
I find this in Romans 1(maybe to) where it says God can be known through what is made.
Yeah, and there's no excuse for not knowing. And therefore they burn in hell for willfully not knowing what they're supposed to know. How very lovely.
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 3:18 PM
OFT, Liar For Jesus™:
As usual for theocrats, this is a load of bullshit.
RE: #1, the very fact that religion is left to THE STATES directly contradicts the assertion that this is a christian NATION. Also, Jefferson was by no means an orthodox or biblical christian. He compared the story of the virgin birth of jesus to Greek mythology, and published a version of the bible without all the supernatural claptrap.
RE: #2, I have a copy of the Constitution right here in my desk. I also went here for an online, searchable version. A search for the word "sabbath" returned no results. You claim that you are referring to Article 1, Section 7, which does not use the word "sabbath" and merely establishes the existence of weekends. The one and only mention of the word "Lord" is part of the phrase "the Year of our Lord", and is a means of writing the date. Are you really so desperate to find an acknowledgement of your imaginary friend where none exists that you'll latch onto an archaic way of writing dates? You then dodge and claim that reference isn't the meat of your argument, which is good, because it's not meat at all, more like rancid tofu, a poor substitue that's already rotting. Of course, you utterly failed to state what the "meat" of your argument actually IS, presumably because you know you have none.
At no point in the Constitution of the United States of America is christianity, jesus christ, the christian god or any other god so much as MENTIONED. In fact, the Constitution explicitly forbids any religious test for public office, or any establishment of religion. Anyone can read the document and see that. The fact that you hide from it proves you are a liar.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 3:30 PM
Chris:Alright, OFT, let's get to the "meat" of your argument. You say that the U.S. Constitution's "no religious test" clause only applied to the federal government, and that it was left up to the states whether or not to have a religious test in their state. This is true. So now all you need to do is explain why virtually all of the states admitted after the U.S. Constitution was written put the same "no religious test clause" in their state constitutions, many in exactly the same words as the U.S. Constitution. All of those states, writing brand new state constitutions, had a choice, and they chose to copy the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on religious tests and other guarantees of religious freedom.
Believing in God; the Christian God, was not a religious test. The religious test was actually a denominational test:
Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:
Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”
That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851)
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 3:42 PM
King Of Ireland @ #36:
Exactly how is his supposed "point" about religon being left to the states "a good one"? If religion is left to the STATES, how does that establish a christian NATION? How does explicitly forbidding the federal government from getting involved in the religion business somehow magically make the entire country a subsidiary of one particular religious cult? OFT's "point" is not only garbage, it demonstrates the exact opposite of what he claims it does! What's good about it? Aside from a laugh at the total obliviousness of the theocratic nutcase.
But if you're going to whine about this country being a "christian nation", you need to specify what you mean, and offer evidence. You have not done so.
KoI again:
David Barton is a theocrat and a fraud. He and his ilk don't give a damn about the founding principles of America, and they couldn't care less about the truth, they just want government sponsorship of their cult. To this end, Barton used sloppy scholarship, quote-mines, dishonest misrepresentations and outright lies. This isn't "unfortunate". It's immoral. The biblical term is "bearing false witness".
There is no honest debate on this issue. There is only the clearly established FACT that the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the christian religion; and the brainwashed sheep and lying crooks who try to pretend otherwise.
Do you, King of Ireland, claim that The United States of America was founded as a christian nation? If so, show your evidence. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 3:47 PM
Perhaps you should first agree on "founded." Plenty of theocrats insist that the USA was "founded" with the Plymouth Bay Colony, which was certainly theocratic. Events of the next century and a half are then ignored (as are plenty of others prior and in other locations.)
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 3:53 PM
Chris said:
OFT replied with:
Constitution completed: September 17, 1787
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2009 3:55 PM
OFT, you've made it clear already that you're not very intelligent or honest, so I want to know if this latest post is an example of stupidity or dishonesty. Do you really not understand that MARYLAND IS NOT THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY? Or are you aware of that fact, but think you can get away with lying about it?
Not to mention that the provision you cite was repealed OVER A CENTURY AGO, by your own admission.
Also, OFT, in all your lies and demented babbling in defense of the claim that this is a "christian nation", you've never clearly defined what that even means. What are you really trying to say? Are you looking for official federal government enforcement of the dictates of your cult, complete with forcible collection of tithes and stoning of nonbelievers? Or what?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 3:57 PM
And KoI, if you disagree with OFT, say so! Tell him to his face, point out where he's wrong, tear his arguments to shreds! If you have a problem with people lying in the name of your god, call them on it!
If you really value the truth, denounce the liars. If you think bearing false witness is a sin, cast out the frauds and defend your cause honestly. If you only value promotion of your cult by any means fair or foul, then go away, you do your imaginary god no credit.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 4:02 PM
Even your quote from before the constitution's adoption reinforces Chris' point and defeats your own. You claim that requiring a belief in the Christian God is not a religious test, but then introduce a document which specifically mentions God and Christianity in their "religious test" clause. The U.S. constitution contains no such language. If belief in the Christian God were admissible as a test of office, why was it not mentioned in the U.S. constitution the way it was in Maryland's?
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2009 4:04 PM
Maryland's State Constitution was not repealed until 1851; with the others upholding the same Christianity years after the Constitution was ratified.
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 4:05 PM
OFT is, ironically and just as I expected, arguing that old State laws that discriminate against Jews should somehow count as Judeo-Christian.
And of course what OFT didn't tell you is that this same state constitution starts with "Article 1: That all Government of right originates from the People..." So much for God being the rock and foundation.
The Maryland Constitution also targeted Jews and Atheists (well, anyone that didn't believe in God and final judgement and and afterlife) as being incompetent/unable to be witnesses or jurors. Article 36:
For any smart Marylanders who think they just found their "get out of jury duty free" card, I don't think this Article is in force any more :)
Source: http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html
Posted by: eric | July 29, 2009 4:13 PM
OFT, are you seriously trying to claim that Maryland is the entire United States of America? Remember, you stared in here claiming this was a christian NATION, now you're reduced to saying there was one christian STATE. How long until you're sitting huddled in a compound like David Fucking Koresh, defending what you claim is the last bastion of christianity on the planet with more guns than all your child brides can carry?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 4:14 PM
D. C. Sessions - I wonder if they have ever heard of Jamestown (founded 14 May 1607) - DJ
_______
PS: also pretty sure that humans had reached America a little before a bunch of religious non-conformists got to Plymouth Harbour (11 November 1620), by about 30K years or so. Guess what? They weren't Christians!
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 4:16 PM
DaveL:The U.S. constitution contains no such language. If belief in the Christian God were admissible as a test of office, why was it not mentioned in the U.S. constitution the way it was in Maryland's?
Because religion was left to the States.
eric:"Article 1: That all Government of right originates from the People..." So much for God being the rock and foundation.
We were formed a Constitutional Republic, not an inspired theocracy.
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 4:18 PM
eric @ #49:
I wouldn't be surprised to find such a provision still in force down here in the Bible Belt, no matter how flagrantly unconstitutional.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 4:21 PM
So, OFT, still hiding from my question. How the hell can this be a christian NATION if religion is left to the STATES?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 4:23 PM
Jon Rowe, an awesome resource on the church-state issue who covers our country's founding, posts at http://americancreation.blogspot.com/ . Ed has mentioned him as a friend to this blog, he's guest-blogged here before, and is a co-blogger at another site Ed used to blog at, PositiveLiberty.com.
There are other bloggers at American Creation as well worth following. While many of the blog posts by the bloggers there are well worth reading, the quality of dialogue and debates in the comments, at least when Rowe first started blogging over there, was unbearable. This was namely due to two to three trolls who were dishonest, totally resistant to rebuttals to their comments that overwhelmingly falsified their claims, and relentless.
While I do not know if OFT is still allowed to comment at American Creation (I know they got rid of one or two others) he was probably the worst of these handful of trolls. I highly recommend ignoring him. Nothing productive will come out of it as you can tell from this clusterfuck of a comment thread.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 4:24 PM
Shall we delve into the piles of anachronistic laws that remain on the books all over the U.S.? Indeed, with the inertia inherent in a constitution vs. normal legislative act, the fact it was repealed at all strongly argues that religious tests (of which belief in the Christian God is one, no matter what you may claim) had fallen out of favour long before the actual repeal.
So why did almost all the states constitutions written after the U.S. Constitution use the same language?
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2009 4:25 PM
Forgot to add one other item. Just to let you in on what you are dealing with when it comes to OFT's character, integrity, and intellectual honesty - OFT is an acronym for "Our Founding Truth". Do you really think someone with that name is open to honest inquiry, debate, and a willingness to adapt his positions when his points are falsified?
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 4:30 PM
phantomreader42:So, OFT, still hiding from my question. How the hell can this be a christian NATION if religion is left to the STATES?
It appears to me if all the States had Christian Constitutions, it's safe to say we were a Christian Nation.
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 4:33 PM
OFT, still trying desperately to pretend that a christian nation can be established without the slightest mention of christianity in the national Constitution:
Well then, OFT, demonstrate that every single state in the union has an explicitly christian Constitution which denies citizenship to non-christians, or fuck off.
But before you go, clearly state what you mean by the term "christian nation". Until you can do that, you're just babbling nonsense. Not that that's anything unusual for you.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 4:44 PM
OFT - Yes except they didn't all have 'Christian Constitutions'* therefore.... - DJ
__________________
*whatever that means. (As pointed out earlier the only example you gave predates the US Constitution [decidedly 'unchristian' by your standards] by some 12 years. This means that the national Constitution decided against copying it.)
Holy evaporating arguments, Batman!
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 4:44 PM
Reading this thread (particularly the interaction between OFT, KoI and Chris Rodda) as a non-USAian, one of my reactions is: Who cares how the US (or Canada, or any other country) was founded, way back when? Church-state separation is just a *damned* *good* *idea* -- and anyone who says otherwise is signalling that they want and expect their particular sect to hold power over everyone else. The purpose of waving around the "Christian foundation" trope (whether as a specific legal claim, or a broader one about cultural influences) is to scare the base into believing that the sky will fall if we don't in some way privilege or impose their sectarian mores on society.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 29, 2009 4:44 PM
Michael Heath:Do you really think someone with that name is open to honest inquiry, debate, and a willingness to adapt his positions when his points are falsified?
Thanks for the nice comments Mike. Instead of attacking me with your false assumption of my character, please show me how my points are falsified?
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 4:48 PM
But, uh, your sample consists of 1 out of 50.
And you only brought up the States when your statement about the US Constitution was shown to be wrong. So it appears that the evidence you use to defend your 'Christian Nation' concept changes.
I suggest you get ahead of us this time, and change your evidentiary requirements again before someone looks up Pennsylvania. Or Utah. Or Hawaii. Or California.
Posted by: eric | July 29, 2009 4:51 PM
OFT, your points have already been shown false countless times. You just refuse to address the refutations honestly. You omit facts, twist the truth, and lie, because you can't bear to consider the possibility that your cult doesn't own America.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 4:53 PM
Oblivious Fucking Theocrat, still pretending Maryland is the entire United States of America:
Just looked up the Constitution of the State of Rhode Island. It contains no mention of christianity. Therefore, by your own argument, since not all states had christian constitutions, this is not a christian nation, and never was.
You fail, OFT, you fail forever. Go back to your hole and hide, lying theocratic scum.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 4:57 PM
I am not a Christian. When the US government denies me certain rights because I'm not a Christian, then and only then will this be a Christian nation.
At that point, it will stop being the United States of America.
An objective alien viewing this world would find little difference between the "Christian Nation" crowd and the Iranian theocracy. The only difference is that the mullahs have actually achieved the "divine power" that Randy Forbes and his ilk want so badly.
Posted by: RickK | July 29, 2009 5:01 PM
If the US was ever a "Christian nation," it ceased to be one when the Bill of Rights was ratified, after which all the "Christian" parts of the State constitutions became null and void.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2009 5:02 PM
Chris.
The Christian Constitutions did not change for years after the Constitution was ratified; the religious test then, is clearly a denominational test. You've seen the other Constitutions, so I don't see the relevance in posting them all here.
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 5:03 PM
Eamon,
It matters because some groups want to change the law to be less secular. They use historical revisionism to bolster their position.
But yeah, you're right. Any sane person should recognize that the founders would only write an amendment process into their document if they approved of the concept of change.
Posted by: eric | July 29, 2009 5:05 PM
RickK @ #65:
This is why I tell them that if they want a theocracy so badly, they can move to Iran.
Have a nice trip, OFT! Get the fuck out of my country, you traitorous swine, and take your sociopathic imaginary friend with you.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 5:05 PM
The Christian Constitutions did not change for years after the Constitution was ratified...
WHICH "Christian Constitutions" are you referring to? Specific references please?
...so I don't see the relevance in posting them all here.
Translation: you know you're lying, so you need an excuse for your failure to back up your assertions with proof. Doesn't your God frown on lying?
Posted by: RAging Bee | July 29, 2009 5:13 PM
Already debunked. Either find a way to rehabilitate your argument, or conceded and move on.
Posted by: DaveL | July 29, 2009 5:14 PM
OFT stated:
I witnessed your character and honesty at American Creation, I should say, a complete lack of character and honesty. I value my time and energy far too much to engage with trolls. I advise the same of other readers here who like me, welcome debate, but expect those debates to be predicated on accurately framing honest assumptions and a willingness to adapt one's positions when one encounters a superior argument. I've read hundreds of your comments at American Creation where neither attribute was exercised by you.
When it comes to criticism I receive in this forum when it comes to exchanges that become debates, it is that I'm too willing to engage with trolls in attempts to educate them by fisking their false assertions, giving them the benefit of the doubt for far too long. I'm merely trying to return the favor to commenters here who I respect who I think would like to know what sort of fellow they've engaged with here and provide them with the same counsel I've needed from them.
It is my not at all humble opinion you've earned ostracism from those who want an accurate understanding of our country's founding history and want to shun those committed to perpetuating a false understanding of such.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 5:15 PM
Obnoxious Fascist Twit @ #67:
Yes, we've seen that the other Constitutions don't support what you're saying. So we know why you're too much of a coward to address them.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 5:16 PM
Eamon Knight wrote:
It is important because we currently have legislators who are using a distorted and sometimes fabricated version of history in order to gain support for an agenda that would destroy the wall between church and state.
Worse yet, they are using the emotions riled up by church/state issues to distract from other legislation that would tear down other fundamental principles of our government. For example, a few years ago a bill passed in the the House that would have prohibited the federal courts from hearing cases related to the Pledge of Allegiance, thus stripping the courts of their constitutionally granted power to hear ALL cases arising under the Constitution. If this bill had passed the Senate and been signed into law, it would have set the incomprehensibly dangerous precedent of Congress dictating which cases the courts can hear -- making a mockery of the separation of powers. The debate on this bill should have been completely focused on Article III of the Constitution, and would have been if the issue that initiated the debate had been any other constitutional issue. But, because the bill had to do with the all important issue of keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the applicable part of the Constitution -- Article III -- was barely mentioned, and the entire debate became about the First Amendment and religion.
Hopefully, the above example will help explain why people like myself take this issue of historical revisionism so seriously.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 29, 2009 5:18 PM
Ms. Rodda, you write there are "dozens" of bunk Whereas-es in those 75. I spotted a number of them myself.
Perhaps President Obama has a few extra beers over at the White House---we can sit you and Rep. Forbes down to agree on the solid 50 Whereas-es that would remain, and everything will be hunky-dory, and the Steel Cage Death Match averted, for the good of the republic.
Posted by: tom van dyke | July 29, 2009 5:45 PM
Phantomreader stated:
"But if you're going to whine about this country being a "christian nation", you need to specify what you mean, and offer evidence. You have not done so."
It depends on what Christian Nation means. I think it means different things to different people and that brings a lot of confusion to the subject. I stated in my first comment where I am coming from go back and read it. As far as evidence my would begin with Locke. We have been discussing this for a long while at American Creation at depth that it is not possible to get into here but if you really care I share some of my thoughts in a post titled: "Locke, Mayhew, and The Political Theology of Founding Pulpits" that was posted Saturday.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Phantomreader stated:
"Exactly how is his supposed "point" about religon being left to the states "a good one"?"
The tenth amendment and the fact that religious test laws in some states were left on the books for a long while.(wrongly I might add in my opinion)The state governments were not part of America?
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 5:51 PM
It means, "there are more of us than there are of you, so you'd better get your kike/raghead/atheist/etc ass in line."
It means that "freedom of religion" allows you to choose between being a Baptist and being a Lutheran. With the State enforcing their doctrines.
Think Massachusetts Bay Colony, 21st Century Edition.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 6:12 PM
Phantomreader stated:
"And KoI, if you disagree with OFT, say so! Tell him to his face, point out where he's wrong, tear his arguments to shreds! If you have a problem with people lying in the name of your god, call them on it!"
I did in my comments. It is ridiculous to say that the Constitution mentions God. It does not. The dating is the dating that has nothing to do with this argument if that is what he is talking about. The sabbath argument is ridiculous. There you happy! Can we get back to an honest discussion on this?
Oh by the way I think Michael Heath is right and OFT was banned from American Creation and Positive Liberty. I am not totally sure of the former.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 6:15 PM
Phantomreader stated:
King of Ireland dodged:
THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT!
You claim this is a "christian nation" but you won't say what YOU mean by that!
You haven't given a clear definition, you seem to be offering some babbling about christian thinkers in Europe influencing things, but if that's all it takes to be a "christian nation" then we're also a muslim nation and one nation under Zeus!
And of course you fail to distinguish between your unspecified definition and OFT's unspecified definition, the latter of which seems to include explicitly denying full citizenship to atheists and jews.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 29, 2009 6:17 PM
Eamon Knight wrote:
American voters, from an almost totally monolithic perspective, believe that our revolt against Britain and subsequent ratification of our current Constitution 200+ years ago were major milestones that led to an increased improvement rate of prosperity, freedom, and relative security for Americans and the rest of the world than if these events had not happened. As an ardent student of our founding (30+ years of constant study in just my adult years), I enthusiastically concur.
This consensus however is built on a very flawed public education approach to our history that creates ample opportunity for propaganda to be accepted as true, I think mostly because public schools avoid discussing the role religion played in both culture and politics throughout American History along with their failure to not relentlessly cover civics (the religious aspect is covered at university, but not until then, and it's not a required topic).
This American understanding of our founding is often effectively leveraged by present-day politicians who will argue for policies they claim are consistent with our founding ideals. Throughout our history we've had a handful of political movements who did not possess any honesty who were and are eagerly willing to leverage this gold mine of political capital.
In our time it is the religious right. Until recently they were very well-organized and had growing influence on our government from the 1970s through the Bush years. By the 2000 election they were the largest voter constituency group supporting the Republican party, in fact they were about 56% of the party when the Republicans were garnering slightly more than 50% than the votes. From 2001 to 2007 no single voting entity had more influence on our government (some financial constituents had more influence, but no voting constituencies). One example is that our President during this time called one of their leaders, the Rev. James Dobson, the first morning of every work week (here that's Monday).
Therefore, the work people like Chris Rodda, Jon Rowe, and Ed Brayton, along with established historians, do in fisking their propaganda is invaluable. What's probably harmed the religious right the most is that once they were in power and able to govern starting in 2001, they proved their reliance on dogma and divine revelation (also described as intuition, "going with my gut", and "prayerful consideration") was proven to be totally disastrous in terms of competence. No surprise there, nearly any scientist can tell you that sound critical thinking considering all relevant facts and considering multiple perspectives from functional experts is far superior to religious dogma and gut instincts by a cocooned few.
Many of us strive to not forget these disasters and work to constantly iterate the lessons from the last several years and work to ostracize these people from power and influence in the public square given what they are - liars who push an agenda as anti-America as any (and I use that term extremely sparingly - currently reserving it only for the religious right and terrorists). In fact, one of the reasons we got such a great start in our country was how irreligious our founding framers were, both relatively speaking for their time and even nominally*, when it came to matters of governance, they were the exact opposite of the propagandists who attempt to cling to their coattails.
*When one actually studies the history of what was going on with our founding framers - what they worried about, along with how they administrated when they had political power - there was very little promotion of religion with the exception of some minor pandering they did in both office or when dealing with that day's version of populists.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 6:18 PM
eric and Chris: You're right of course, "who cares" was perhaps poor wording on my part. I'm well aware of what goes on down there (largely by reading American blogs like this one) and refuting the liars on the specifics is an important aspect of dismantling their propaganda.
However, I also think it's worth having a discussion on the wider issue of historical Christian influences on Western societies, and how that has changed, and how to create a truly secular society. That discussion should not get lost in the specifics of American history and ConLaw.
I say this partly because as a Canadian the American details are not directly relevant to me. We also get a certain amount of this Judeo-Christian foundationalism up here, though not as popular -- and unfortunately, they can point to a phrase in the 1982 Constitution, which makes God (albeit not specifically Christian) more or less official.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 29, 2009 6:19 PM
Eamon Knight stated:
"Church-state separation is just a *damned* *good* *idea* -"
Agreed! Depending on what is means.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 6:20 PM
Tom Van Dyke stated:
Do you think the remaining fifty whereas you think might be accurate properly frame our history regarding Forbes' objective at describing our history? If not and if we provided a more accurate context of those times, do you think that Forbes general description and objective would subsequently appear absurd?
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 6:25 PM
Michael Heath,
I cannot say I agree with everything you wrote in your last post(thought most of it) but it was well written and kind of sums up the whole issue. I knew when I saw OFT it would turn to shit. With that said, there are some serious omissions from the secular side as well. Jon Rowe is real good about pointing these out and being balanced in this topic. I think some of this site lose sight of that part of it. If the goal is truth one has to be consistent.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 6:32 PM
But did it? I read this rathole as a preview of any public Forbes/Rodda confrontation.
Gish Gallop to the moving goalposts, with a hefty dose of Humpty Dumpty kept in a hidden corner so that only the Egg knows what the words mean.
Count on it.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 6:37 PM
I don't know, Mr. Heath---it would depend on what 50 Whereas-es remained, wouldn't you think?
But at least there would be grounds for intelligent discussion, as we'd get rid of the "gotcha" factor.
Admittedly, it would likely require more than just a couple beers...
Posted by: tom van dyke | July 29, 2009 6:38 PM
Phantomreader stated:
"You claim this is a "christian nation" but you won't say what YOU mean by that!"
I have NOT said one time this is a Christian Nation. I have asked you guys what you think that means before I even comment. I am honestly not sure what it means and have no idea what you would think that means. It seems that the fear is of a Theocracy. I have no support for that. I have no support for forcing morality. I am essentially Libertarian. That is the way I read the Bible and understand natural law. Again read my first comment and you will see where I am coming from and where I differ from OFT.
In short, I believe a great deal of the ideas in the DOI have a lot more "Christian" of an origin than most people think. See John Locke's theological writings. If you want more details on my view check www.theking25.blogspot.com or americancreation.blogspot.com where I have posted more in depth on this subject.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 6:42 PM
D.C. Sessions stated:
"But did it? I read this rathole as a preview of any public Forbes/Rodda confrontation."
Yea, it is real hard to beat people that have been indoctrinated into this shit and most have never thought for themselves in a debate.(sarcasm intended) Most, get mad when something comes up that they did not expect and run away mad.
BUT even if Rodda proves him wrong, it will not get us any closer to answering the questions that need to be answered to get to the bottom of all this. The whole frame of discussion is wrong as Tom Van Dyke pointed out in his comment.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 6:49 PM
DC Sessions stated:
"Think Massachusetts Bay Colony, 21st Century Edition."
If that is what it means then I am out. Gaining freedom to worship how you want and then not allowing for others seems kind of hypocritical to me. How about you? Are you open that there are many biblical principles in "American Liberal Constitutional Republic 1776-1787 edition"? If not why not? Then we can have an honest discussion without all the normal BS.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 6:55 PM
King of Ireland, I just stopped by to see if I could make some peace between Rodda and Forbes. I'm outta here.
Posted by: tom van dyke | July 29, 2009 7:03 PM
RAging Bee:Doesn't your God frown on lying?
Since you brought Him into it, I don't see a religious test as the issue, rather were the States Christian:
Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776),
Article XXXII..the truth of the
Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or
New Testaments,(until
1876)
The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) Article XXII “I, _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the
Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
Virginia 1786
"and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do"
The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780)
“I, _______, do
declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have
firm persuasion of its truth.”[until 1822]
Constitution of the State of New Hampshire (1784,1792),
required senators and representatives to be of the:
Protestant religion. (in
force until 1877)
Connecticut 1776, until [1818]
And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges;
NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1777[until 1822]
ARTICLE XXXV. as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to
RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION
The colonial Charter of 1663 was in force as the organic law in Rhode Is: The charter provided for the public support of the Christian Religion.
http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_ri.htm
SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION 1790
ARTICLE I, SECTION 23. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are by their profession dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls
New Jersey, 1776,[until 1844]
XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right
Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated:
Frame of Government, Section
9...And I do acknowledge
the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by
divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian]
religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever,thereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.”
Posted by: OFT | July 29, 2009 7:11 PM
I see a lot of European Enlightenment principles, and necessarily since the Europe of the Enlightenment was chock-full of Christians it would be stupid to pretend that they all came from Japan.
It's silly to argue that because the Church had a code of law that legal codes are "Christian Principles." The question is what, in the distinctive formation of the United States, is uniquely derived from Christianity.
Bicameral legislature? Hardly.
Democratic republic? Dream on.
Independent judiciary? Show me.
Federalism? I don't see it.
Regulation of the currency?
Please, do explain which "principles" you're attributing uniquely to Christianity (as distinct from Christians.)
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 7:27 PM
Finally! a worthwhile troll thread. I'm getting quite a kick out of our imaginative variations on OFT.
More for your enjoyment:
Obtuse Fatuous Tosser
Obsequious Flatulent Tortoise
Old Fuselage Toaster
Obituary-Falsifier Training(-bra)
OlFactory Torture
O! ForTuna
Does Cuttlefish ever come by here, or is he Pharyngyla-only? I'd love to see what he could come up with.
Posted by: xebecs | July 29, 2009 7:33 PM
To anyone whose studied this topic ardently and honestly, there is no doubt our Constitution as written, developed, and ratified in 1787 - 1789 both distinguished itself and was radical in its secularism, particularly its exposition of government powers' being delegated by the people, rather than a particular sect or sects' understanding of power deriving from god - who was the former claimed source of power.
Couple that development to the Washington Administration's rapid build-up and deployment of federal powers that astonished some, including Madison and Jefferson (who eventually followed Washington's examples), and you have the makings for a radically new form of state. However, in spite of its success, today we have at least 28% of the American population that would fight such separation and fight the idea of a judiciary who has a formal obligation to defend our individual rights from unconstitutional government encroachment by the Executive and Legislature and it's even more difficult for freethinkers to get elected now than when our framers were able to secure political office, in spite of many of them being the freethinkers of their time.
There is also little doubt that it took other government institutions not just in the U.S. but also in the rest of Western Civilization, time to disestablish any religious ties they may have had prior to this radical development in the mid- to late-1780s (which included the Commonwealth of Virginia's lead as well) - such as the various states. But those efforts to secularize their government entitities began prior to, on, or very soon after ratification of the federal Constitution. Secularism as a ruling idea has flourished to some degree ever since, in addition a public form of unitarianism/universalism also took form during this time - I suggest following Jon Rowe for its development and place. Jon Meacham's book also does a fairly decent job though it unnecessarily muddies the waters between religious expression in the public square by citzens religious expression by the government. During this time Christianists did exist and did fight for a place for religion in government, they lost the big battles (the states w/some exceptions) repeatedly, but continue to win battles, in some states today like Texas, in local school boards, and even in some communities, and of course to some degree when Bush and the GOP took control this decade.
This disestablishment of religion from the state and its resulting 'freedom of conscience' was one of several freedoms which created a distinct advantage in America for englightened thinking to flourish. Political freedom such as this was one of only a few reasons America was able to surpass any other country or region of the world in both wealth and political power. The other primary factors besides our relative political freedom being our not being constrained as much by class - which allowed us to establish a meritocracy (relatively speaking), and of course our abundant natural resources.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 7:44 PM
King of Ireland - I'll give you a definition. A Christian nation is one in which Christianity is explicitly recognized above any other religion (or lack of religion) in the that country's governing documents. The US is not a Christian nation.
OFT - Why should I give a shit what the past constitutions of states I've never lived in say? If the federal government or any state tried to impose a religious test for office today (denominational or not), it would be struck down so fast it would make your head spin. You know why? Because we are NOT a Christian nation.
Posted by: Taz | July 29, 2009 8:09 PM
Micheal Heath - I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "Awww, you Americans are so cute, you think you invented democracy."
Yep, your all wise Founding Fathers were just so fantastic they invented secular democracy. Such a system exists no where else. Notably in those theocracies such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, England, Norway, Sweden, Denmark & etc. & etc.
And, of course America has no right-wing religious retards trying to wriggle out of trysts with (male & female) hookers, taking nine year olds across state borders for the purpose of statutory rape or 'hiking in the Appalachians' (if you know what I mean). Never ever happens in America.
The Founding Fathers would be so proud - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 8:33 PM
DJ, I don't think MH was claiming that the USA is the original representative democracy -- he's not an idiot, and you may have noticed that he's actually read enough history that he may even have heard of the Houses of Lords and Commons. Maybe even the Magna Carta.
Which isn't to suggest that there weren't just one or two original innovations in government happening in North America in the late 18th century. Citing the governments of Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark isn't going to refute that thesis, if only because in the 18th century they all had established state religions.
The Netherlands came about as close as anyone at the time to having a de facto secular state, and even there the relationship was rather less than arms' length.
So, I'd suggest chilling out a bit. Barring the village idiot nobody here is suggesting that the USA created the modern secular democracy, fully formed, from George Washington's brow. Just that there might have been one or two contributions to its evolution that didn't come directly from Europe.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 8:46 PM
When last heard from OFT (Out of his fucking tree) had transitted the Oort Cloud and was headed for Alpha Centauri.
This ones for you, Offie:
1 Corinthians, 13 (subtly parahprased)
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a theocraticist; man, I, said, "Fuck it", the truth is what I say it is, 'cuz that's what JesusGod tells me."
Posted by: democommie | July 29, 2009 8:58 PM
DC Sessions stated:
"Please, do explain which "principles" you're attributing uniquely to Christianity (as distinct from Christians.)"
The inherent worth of the individual to start with. I would say it is a biblical principle more than a Christian one. In that Christianity has a lot of horrible shit under its banner that was based on what I consider faulty theology.
I am also open to some claims that I have seen that say that at least part of the common law that came from England and into our Constitution, i.e., trial by jury and similar things to that, where taken from the Bible. I have not studied this so it could be a crap argument.
The scholastics were big on human rights long before the enlightenment. I think we see this in the constitution of Aragon in the late 1400's. There was a school in Salmonica( I am close but spelled it wrong) that had a treaty in I think 1512 that many consider the first statement on human rights. From the worth of the individual one then can proceed to the right to life, liberty and property and where these themes are found in the certain schools of biblical and natural law thought both with Locke and prior to him.
I do think that some of the leaps that Barton and Providence Foundation types make is trying to fit the American form of government into the Bible. They talk about the Hebrew Republic. I think it a major stretch. I do not personally think the Bible elevates one form of government over another as long as justice is at the core of the system. Well enough for now. If you really think these discussion are important check out the blogs I cited earlier for more details. American Creation has all points of view and gets into way more depth than is possible in a comment section here because Ed talks about other issues as well.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 9:04 PM
Attributing "the inherent worth of the individual" to any sort of Biblical origin is really twisting history. All of the Indo-European cultures placed more value on individuals than the Semitic ones; you can tie about half of the Hebrew legal code to the need to support the tribe and never mind the individual.
Can you say, "Levirate marriage?"
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 9:09 PM
D.C. Sessions - I really didn't understand what DJ was trying to communicate so I was going to merely let it go. I think it might have been satirical given that he threw Japan in there.
Japan of course only instituted human rights after their surrender to the Allies in WWII when they were forced under the Potsdam Declaration (the terms of their surrender) to create a constitution that protected the rights of speech, religion, and respect other fundamental human rights. In fact during the development of the Japanese Constitution after their surrender they repeatedly tried to dodge these reforms until U.S. General Douglas MacArthur employed two senior military officers who were lawyers and who drafted most of Japan's constitution.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 9:11 PM
King of Ireland -
You did notice that DC Sessions used the word "uniquely", right? Are you really stating that "the inherent worth of the individual" is not endemic to any other religion? (Any other besides Christianity or Judaism, I suppose, since you used the caveat of it being "Biblical".) If you are asserting that, do you have actual scholarship to back it up?
Posted by: Taz | July 29, 2009 9:14 PM
How does the Christian god supposedly commit himself to the inherent worth of the individual when he's supposedly established policies that require one to submit, in his supposed words, "like a child" to beliefs that are neither rational or supported by any evidence whatsoever? Especially where the individual who acts rationally and rejects submission to this contradictory dogma is supposedly condemned to eternal punishment for rejecting this zero-evidence irrational offer.
I see no "worth of the individual" in Christianity's primary and central premise of converting or rejecting Christianity. I do see human-created dogma that describes a god who wants syncophants to submit to authority - a conditioning to submit to religious authority figures common to primitive religions.
In fact, the central premise of orthodox Christianity is perfectly contrary to the liberty claims of the Declaration of the Independence whose description of our rights are formally protected from such nonsense by the U.S. Constitution. This idea was widely expressed by several of the founders, particularly Adams and Jefferson.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 9:32 PM
Micheal Heath seems to be a little too ford of'American Exceptionism'. Other countries seemed to achieve (and surpass in some cases) America in terms of secularisation by following different paths. Each reached the end point by increasing the power of the 'middle classes', increasing the level of education, allowing reproductive control, maintaining steady supplies of nesscessities to the people, allowing their citizen to have a say in the businss of their states, amonst many other factors. Sepration of church and state was but one of these factors in America, but not nesseceraly in other states.
The power of this secularisation can not be denied nor overstated. The Theocrats (witch ironically seem common in America, but rarer elsewhere, for reasons I can't fathom) don't want to establish a state religion, thay want to enforce a uniform belief in a single state religion, a kind of neo-puritanism, if you will. This enforced, top-down, rigid monoculture seems to be a feature of all authoritarian style governments and theocratic tendencies are mearly the symptom of a wider, underling maladay. Be careful not to treat the spots, but die of the measles.
There might have been more (or even a point) but I'm too tired to find it I guess - I'm going for a nap - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 9:43 PM
DJ - I think you misunderstood my previous posts, which were focused on Exceptionalism not of America (with the exception of of our exploitation of natural resources), but of the form of government we installed based on secular enlightenment principles. And it was exceptional, and radical and it has extended in some forms and varying degrees even through today not just in America, but in 120 liberal democracies as of 2000.
In addition, America did set an example for the rest of the world from that time right up till today - with a growing number of other countries that compete and sometimes exceed us at defending their citizens rights and setting even better examples in some matters - that I celebrate. Competition improves the survivors. It's also true we were the ones getting schooled during the dark years of Bush.
Nothing I'm stating in this comment post contradicts what I stated earlier, where I was focused exclusively on America's founding and our formal ratification of a secular government which helped lead whose exceptional performance led to 120 liberal democracies by the end of the 20th century. In fact those countries success speaks even more eloquently than America for their attendant successes given most of them did not have the natural resources we had, which argues for more weight being attributed to merit and freedom.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2009 9:58 PM
Micheal Heath -
Having re-read more carefully (and subsequent posts) I withdraw whatever the hell I was trying to say. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 29, 2009 10:01 PM
If you are asserting that, do you have actual scholarship to back it up?
First I did not see the "unique". Second, I do not have scholarship to back it up if you include unique in there. But since, I believe in general revelation I can see truth in other religions and philosophies. My experience with Hindu and Buddhist cultures/religion is that worth of the individual is not emphasized in the scriptures they use but I am basing this on numerous conversations not from any in depth reading of my own. As far as discussions I have had with Muslims I would say the same.
Asian cultures, including tribal religions, tend to have a collective outlook not an individual one. I have talked to numerous Tibetan's that tell me to be Tibetan means to be Buddhist but have never read any of the writings for themselves. I had numerous lunches with a Buddhist monk that I knew more about his religion than he did. I did do some pretty extensive reading but was by no means an expert I was shocked.
In short, individualism seems to be a Western Humanist idea as far as AD goes. When I say humanist I believe that there are Christian Humanists and Secular Humanists. The former came first.
This is actually a great question. I am starting to think about going and getting a History Graduate Degree and have a real interest in the DOI and the ideas behind it and a study of the history of the idea of the individual. I think a proper study would have to include other religious texts and different cultures.
By the way I do not hold Christianity as the only source of ideas behind the founding. Though I am of the opinion that it was the most influential to the political philosophy.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 10:46 PM
I should have put quotes around the first sentence at the top of my last comment
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 10:48 PM
The worth of the individual is seen in that the individual is made in the image of God. Thus, despite what some would say, there is some good in all of us that makes us valuable. I am open to some of the teachings about universal salvation based that it seems eternal damnation and a loving God contradict logic. Since, I am just beginning to explore this idea I have not done much biblical research on it to really comment. But with that said, the teaching of love your neighbor goes along the lines of teaching the worth of the individual. The whole good Samaritian parable would seem to line up with the worth of the individual being important. As usual, people pick one part of the Bible that seems to make God out as a prick and ignore others that contradict that proposition.
What do you think human rights are grounded if not endowed by our Creator?
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 11:02 PM
If you're going to argue that something had its roots in Christianity, you at the very least need to establish that it didn't come from somewhere else. Simply asserting that "Christianity values food" and therefore "valuing food comes from Christianity" is going to get you laughed out of the room.
That's a lovely platitude. The former Soviet Union had a lot of lovely platitudes, too. How about some actual pragmatic demonstrations that the Church distinguished itself by valuing individuals?
In particular, how about some demonstration that it placed more value on individuals than the pre-Christian cultures that it overcame, such as the Northern European (Teutonic) ones, or the Celtic ones?
Game theory.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 29, 2009 11:31 PM
"It'll come down to Forbes with "and as Thomas Jefferson said, " and Rodda trying to say he never did -- but there's no way for Rodda to prove the negative in real time. "
And that's the central problem. Debate ony works as a means for finding truth when both participants debate in good faith. Each lays out facts, and then you discuss the meaning of them.
When one of the participants is a liar, the debate "method" just doesn not and cannot work.
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 29, 2009 11:43 PM
The whole good Samaritian parable would seem to line up with the worth of the individual being important.
Yeah, that's the parable right after the part where Jesus says he will destroy the towns who don't welcome his evangelists. How very neighborly.
Heal the sick in the towns that welcome them, but don't heal the sick in the towns that don't welcome them. How very awesomely neighborly.
Blame all of the inhabitants of the entire town if they are not welcomed. Yeah, sounds like a pretty good "worth of the individual". I guess towns are individuals too.
As usual, people pick one part of the Bible that seems to make God out as a prick and ignore others that contradict that proposition.
No, it's to point out that there are indeed contradictions, and that you are the one who is ignoring them because you don't like them.
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 11:48 PM
In the Federalist Papers, Madison clarifies several times that the prohibition of religious tests in the federal constitution goes beyond merely a denominatinal test. In fact there was discussion during the constitutional convention of making it a denominatinal test, but the idea was rejected. Some members clearly were in favor of the idea, but the majority were not.
Once the states began debating whether constitution should be ratified, there was considerable discussion in the press as to the nature of the religious test clause. There is no doubt, reading these discussions, that the clause was understood to be a prohibition against religious tests of any kind, not a denominational test. Many people were aghast at the notion, many were highly favorable, but the meaning of the clause was apparent to all, and was clearly the opposite of what OFT mainains. Any study of the source documents will reveal that the religious test clause in the federal constitution was to be all-encompassing.
Posted by: Observer | July 29, 2009 11:49 PM
dc sessions stated:
"If you're going to argue that something had its roots in Christianity, you at the very least need to establish that it didn't come from somewhere else"
Did you even read my comments? The one's about general revelation?
"That's a lovely platitude. The former Soviet Union had a lot of lovely platitudes, too. How about some actual pragmatic demonstrations that the Church distinguished itself by valuing individuals?
Yes, the treaty of Sales(I think it was called that) in 1512 in Salmanca, Spain that made stances on universal human rights. Ever heard of Bartolomo Casas? Again, did you even read my comments?
What evidence do you have that the Celtics placed value on the individual?
"Game Theory"
Based on what evidence?
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 11:52 PM
Counsel of Bergos not Treaty of Sales in my last comment. It was 1512 and I got the city right.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 29, 2009 11:56 PM
Did you even read my comments? The one's about general revelation?
How about the one where entire cities are destroyed if we don't like them, utterly disregarding the worth of the individual. Is that one general revelation too? Or is general revelation just the parts that we like?
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 11:59 PM
Worth of the individual = destroy the world with a flood. General revelation!!
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 12:02 AM
KoI - you posted "When I say humanist I believe that there are Christian Humanists and Secular Humanists. The former came first."
What no Roman or Greek 'proto-humanists' who valued individualism in Western Europe before 1 c.e? None at all?
Why I am struggling to believe that? - DJ
PS: Confining yourself to the last 2000 years or so and within Europe, is a little like saying "The only form of mechanised, petrol-fuelled, internal combustion powered vehicle of one ton or less within the last decade of the 20th century was the automobile. There was no other transport. [there may be other forms of transport earlier and/or outside these parameters, but since they don't help my arguement I'll crop to fit]."
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2009 12:02 AM
What no Roman or Greek 'proto-humanists' who valued individualism in Western Europe before 1 c.e? None at all?
Well okay, maybe there were a few. But it was because of general revelation. It was the same god as the Christian god, except they just didn't know it though!
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 12:09 AM
"But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town."
Be a good neighbor, and remember that the worth of the individual is worth a lot, especially if it is an individual town.
Oh, and the kingdom of God is near, as always. The time is always near.
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 12:16 AM
Always remember kiddies, Jesus will destroy every freaking individual in every individual town if they do not welcome you, for the worth of the individual is a basic general revelation. Oh yeah, and the kingdom of God is near.
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 12:23 AM
386rx,
As far as the your argument about God ignoring the individuals and blasting towns of poor innocent people who had done nothing wrong:
Did not the "men of peace"(those that were open to the message) count as individuals?Gotta read the whole story man. Is this not consistent with Abraham praying and asking God if there were 10 righteous men in a city would he save and God saying yes? Less you say 10 is not one lets remember it states that Lot was saved as the only man. What about where it says that he see the hair on a person's head, and that he even feeds the sparrows?
The cities were going to be destroyed in "that day" there are many views at to what this means but it implies future judgement. But they were compared to Sodom and Gomorah where gang rape by force was the welcome to strangers? Poor innocent people right? Sounds like "Lord of Flies" world to me.
"Or is general revelation just the parts that we like?"
General revelation is God being known from what is made. But that gets into a discussion that can add another 300 comments to this post and would be off topic.
But none of this really has any bearing on whether what people took from the Bible taught them to value the individual and how this view impacted the Western World. That is the historical question that it is at the center of this debate that has nothing to do with truth claims. The one that most here seek to ignore.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 12:26 AM
An excellent answer, if a tad short on details ;-). Let me try to flesh it out:
Being a former Christian, I think I see where you're coming from, KOI. You're the kind of Christian Humanist who thinks rights, morality, meaning, indeed the whole idea of truth, needs to be formally grounded by attributing to them the status of Platonic Forms -- ideas in the mind of God, who is himself Absolute Good and the Ground of All Being. Sans deity, you're not going to get that kind of grounding, neither for rights nor for anything else.
What we can have (in my admittedly not well-educated view) is a pragmatic social contract, not between the people and a Sovereign (since we are democrats), but among the people themselves. According to this contract, we grant ourselves, collectively, rights like free expression, the electoral franchise, due process, security of person and property, etc, etc. We do so because each of us individually desires this for ourselves, and recognize (here's where the game theory comes in) that the most reliable and efficient way to guarantee them in the long term is to make them universal, and create legal mechanisms to implement and enforce them.
Now you may be thinking that that's a rather fragile guarantee for something as important as rights. And IMO you would be right. For example, if I am very wealthy I may be able to change the terms of the game, such that I can enforce my own freedom and welfare without regard to that of others. Guarding freedom against such cheaters (and maintaining it in balance with a necessary degree of social order) proverbially requires constant vigilance.
But before we retreat back into putative divine guarantees of human rights, let us consider how fragile that guarantee has turned out to be in practice. It seems like it took God until the 15th century (give or take, depending on where you think the important phase change is) to even come up with the idea in any serious way. And even then, God's Will (as usual) appears to depend on the whims and interests of those who speak for him -- women were emancipated a mere century ago; racial minorities well within living memory; the work is still not complete even in the Western democracies, and God's spokesmen have been confusingly vocal on both sides of all these struggles.
It would indeed be nice to have all our rights guaranteed in the heavenly places -- but since God observably seems lax in enforcing them (there's an obvious reason for that, IMNSHO), we'll just have to make do with what we have available.
(And now I really have to be off to bed ;-)).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 30, 2009 12:40 AM
DJ,
Good point! Aquinas got a lot of his ideas from Aristotle. This is because he was open to Aristotle. But in my reading of ancient History I find that equal rights almost never included those that were conquered. As far as I can tell the Council of Bergas I mentioned(which was came from the ideas taught at a scholastic university) was the first declaration for conquered people to have equal rights in the Western World. If you know of others than please tell. As far as just 2,000 years that is the time of "Christian Thought" and germain to the topic at hand as far as the Christian part of Judeo-Christian.
The Judeo part is summed up in Image of God. I also re-iterate God and Abraham discussing mercy for Sodom and Gomorrah. How about Abel's blood crying out because he was murdered?
Or:
"Whoever shed the blood of man,
by man his blood shall be shed:
for in the image of God
has God made man"
Genesis 9:6
But as I stated, all truth claims aside, this has no bearing on the History of how ideas that were based on scriptures like this impacted the Western World and thus our Founding. That is what needs to be debated to get to the bottom of the History. Which was the subject of this post.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 12:47 AM
Eamon Knight:
"It seems like it took God until the 15th century (give or take, depending on where you think the important phase change is) to even come up with the idea in any serious way. "
As a former atheist I can understand where you are coming from too. But why blame it on God because people cannot understand Genesis 9:6 I quoted above until thousands of years later?
But if we stipulate that these ideas that made there way to the Founders did not come into focus until the 15th Century that seems like nod to the idea that they are Christian first not Enlightenment. Which is really the core of this debate despite all the silly distracting questions about town being destroyed and the worth of the individual as dreamed of by the celtics. Tough fun to banter back and forth about, these questions do not get as any further to weighing the influence of the secular enlightenment vs. Politically Theological Liberal Christianity on the scale and determining which had greater weight on our Founding. I am starting to see that you all are more interested in making OFT look stupid(real hard to do I am proud of you) than really learning the nuances of this topic and engaging reasonable Christians in discussion. The jury is still out on Chris Rodda though I gave her a chance today.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 1:04 AM
King of Ireland, since you brought up the sparrows, and since I gotta read the whole story, then I guess I can assume that you take no thought for the morrow. (It seems to me that a Constitution would indeed be taking a thought for the morrow, but hey what do I know.)
But since you want to get to bottom of the History, then I guess I can also assume that you do take thought for the yesterday. (But not the morrow though. That would be bad.)
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 1:07 AM
KoI - Just for kicks go down to the poor part of town where you live and find a group of black men (sadly such men will be common in poorer areas). Then tell them how lucky their forbears were, if they had been enslaved by the wicked ol' Romans with their pagan gods they would have had the chance to work a farm for twenty years or so in the service of a family, been able to marry and own some property, got the chance to be manumitted and even become a citizen (by serving in the vigils for example). But, their ancestors got to be enslaved perpetually along with their descendants, not be able to marry without permission or own property, until the wicked Northerners freed them (for political reasons) so their former masters could virtually enslave them again with 'Jim Crow' laws until the 1960's. How fortunate they were enslaved by Judeo-Christian Humanists rather than the nasty ol' Romans.
Sure that'll get a laugh out of them. -DJ
PS: The point being, 'Judeo-Christian' doesn't always mean moral; and 'not Judeo-Christian' doesn't always mean immoral, as these RRR types seem to think. (I certainly would not lump you in with them. I used 'you' above to get a visceral understanding).
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2009 1:21 AM
KoI - I'm also fond (I confess) of the Judeo-Christian ethics based on the idea:
a) God says spilling human blood is bad
b) oh well, except when I command a genocide. That's fine
c) oh and except when I tell you to sacrifice your own son. That;s fine too
d) oh and just ignore how I kill (nearly) the whole human population of the Earth and (nearly) all the living things on it, in a fit of pique.
e) oh and those nasty Egyptians, and several whole towns I didn't like much, oh and my own prophet whom I choose to lead my 'chosen' people out of evil slavery (so they could enslave others) and ... etc.
Yep I can see how the American Constitution was based on this sterling example of firm morality and justice - Dingo.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2009 1:45 AM
I don't understand why human rights necessarily have to be anything other than an artificial construct. In fact, I'm not even sure what a natural right would look like, given that human rights have historically just been whatever society decided to enforce at the time. It might be a different matter if every attempt to torture somebody was rebuffed by some cosmic force, but it seems to me that the only thing making human rights real is humans.
That's not to say that I think that the general code of human rights we've arrived at are a bad thing or unimportant. I just don't see any reason to believe that they flow from anything other than centuries of refinement of rules we use to live together in a civilized way.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 30, 2009 3:27 AM
I don't understand why human rights necessarily have to be anything other than an artificial construct
Very good, Mr. Troublesome Frog. You hit the nail on the head. As Thomas Jefferson said [full quote, not just the excerpt on the Jefferson Memorial]:
[in #69 of H. res 397, which is the topic]
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?"
Human rights is an artificial construct.
"Rights" is an artificial construct.
Our definition of "human" is an artificial construct.
Anyone who doesn't deal with #69 first is a joke.
Posted by: tom van dyke | July 30, 2009 6:08 AM
@KoI #:
I have; it is.
Posted by: Robin Levett | July 30, 2009 8:33 AM
DJ stated:
"The point being, 'Judeo-Christian' doesn't always mean moral;"
I stated that in one of my comments. As far as the poor black guy near where I live before I moved I worked in the ghetto for years and saw the effects of slavery that are still alive today. The form of Judeo-Christianity that screwed them had a belief in the Divine Right of Kings that outweighed their belief in the worth of the individual. That type of thinking came from what I believe is a wrong reading of Romans 13.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 10:45 AM
386rx,
Now you are getting absurd. You pull out a story that you say proves that God does not consider the individual when judging someone and it turns out that he tells the disciples to look for individuals that would be open to their message. Admit that that was a horrible example of your point instead of coming back with a worse argument from a parable, that when taken in FULL context, is telling people not to sit around and worry because God is going to take care of them. It is not telling people that the future is not important. That is obvious.
Now that that is done, do you wish to discuss the History at hand, like the Treaty of Bergas? If not I am done.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 10:55 AM
King of Ireland, it is absurd to punish whole towns and nations for what some of its individuals do. It's not absurd for people, but it's absurd for gods because they have the whole omnipotence thing going for them.
Therefore, since gods are omnipotent, and they "consider the individual", then if a god destroys an entire town, or nation, or even a planet, then every single last individual deserved what they got. Is that about right? Of course it is...
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 11:22 AM
KoI, you've defined yourself into meaninglessness by the "universal revelation" gambit. If everything good, no matter where or when, is somehow "Christian" then the statement that "this Good Thing came from Christianity" is tautological.
Have fun playing with yourself.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 30, 2009 11:26 AM
It is not telling people that the future is not important. That is obvious.
Yeah it's perfectly obvious that people shouldn't worry about food and clothing and their future because god is going to provide for them. Perfectly freaking obvious.
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 11:27 AM
TVD@131 - Anyone who doesn't deal with #69 first is a joke.
What do you make of this quote?
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 30, 2009 11:34 AM
Now that that is done, do you wish to discuss the History at hand, like the Treaty of Bergas?
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if it's about somebody justifying human rights from something out of the Bible, then it wouldn't surprise me or bother me in the slightest. Good for them.
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 11:37 AM
386sx,
He is going to provide it to them through the sweat of their brow. See Genesis. Ed hates people that do not know Biology commenting on what it says. I believe the same goes for the Bible!
The fact that you do not know what the Treaty of Bergas is is telling:
1. Maybe you do not know the history of inalienable rights as well one should who wants to comment on the Founding of America.
2. You are more interested in throwing out Bible verses with no context than you are learning about it from me as one who does know what it is and the impact that ignoring it had on the treatment of natives that Spain conquered.
But all us Christians are dumb hicks right so why bother listening? OFT illustrates the silliness of some Christians and their cognitive dissonance. You do a real good job of proving that the Christians are not the only ones with this problem. If you want to comment on the Bible and be taken seriously(all truth claims aside) then learn it in context instead of quote grabbing. IS THAT NOT WHAT IRRITATES MOST OF YOU ABOUT BARTON AND FORBES? THEN STOP DOING IT YOURSELVES.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 11:52 AM
He is going to provide it to them through the sweat of their brow.
That is an absurdity. "Cognitive dissonance." Like the absurdity where the whole town has to be wiped out because every single last person in it deserves what they get.
People have to do things like that because they are not omnipotent. But Gods don't have to wipe out the whole town.
See Genesis.
That's a long way from Matthew. People can do that all day long. Go here and there and pick whatever they want.
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
That doesn't sound like god is doing any "providing", and it doesn't sound like they shouldn't worry. It doesn't even sound like people have a soul!
Now go somewhere else in the Bible and pick out another verse that contradicts that, and then claim that it doesn't! People can get whatever they want out of the Bible by jumping around wherever they want.
But all us Christians are dumb hicks right so why bother listening?
Nobody ever said that!! (At least not I anyway.) Obviously they are not. Cheers.
Posted by: 386sx | July 30, 2009 12:20 PM
I have some good news! I have decided that henceforth, I shall provide for you, KOI. I will provide you and all your family with all the necessities, comfort and security they will ever need.
By the sweat of your brow, that is. Everything I provide for you you shall procure through your own effort and ingenuity.
Am I not magnanimous?
Posted by: DaveL | July 30, 2009 12:45 PM
KOI replies to me: As a former atheist I can understand where you are coming from too. But why blame it on God because people cannot understand Genesis 9:6 I quoted above until thousands of years later?
The only thing I'm "blaming" on God, as such, is his failure to exist ;-).
But if we stipulate that these ideas that made there way to the Founders did not come into focus until the 15th Century that seems like nod to the idea that they are Christian first not Enlightenment....[etc]
You're arguing with someone else, here. For reasons I have previously posted, I generally leave the details of American history to others. My only point in the comment you are replying to concerned the metaphysical "grounding" of rights, viz:
1) You don't have to ground them in the transcendent for the concept to be meaningful.
2) Grounding them in the transcendent doesn't buy you as much as we might think or like. That the church has been wrong as often as it's been right (ie. by our modern humane standards) is merely evidence of this. I specifically dispute that there is anything like a uniquely correct interpretation of the Bible, or that it can be construed as unambiguously supporting human rights without a lot of cherry-picking.
I am starting to see that you all are more interested in making OFT look stupid(real hard to do I am proud of you)
I have said nothing to or about OFT. I am happy to let others feed him the rope with which to hang himself, which he obligingly does.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 30, 2009 1:01 PM
KOI@126 - But if we stipulate that these ideas that made there way to the Founders did not come into focus until the 15th Century that seems like nod to the idea that they are Christian first not Enlightenment.
I'm confused. You have referred to the Counsel of Bergos, the Council of Bergas, the Treaty of Bergas that took place in 1512.
First, do you have a link?
Second, are you referring to the Laws of Burgos (1512)?
Third, are you referring to the Laws of Burgos (1512) when you say, "...did not come into focus until the 15th Century...?"
Fourth, are you arguing that this is the first instance of the codification of human rights?
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 30, 2009 1:53 PM
KOI@126 - But if we stipulate that these ideas that made there way to the Founders did not come into focus until the 15th Century that seems like nod to the idea that they are Christian first not Enlightenment.
KOI - The ideas of the Founding did not originate with the Founders. To understand this era one should understand the history of the ideas around it.
Exactly.
Many many ideas proclaimed by Christianity in the 12th - 16th centuries, and earlier, have their antecedents in pagan philosophy. After about the 4th-5th c. AD in the west these pagan ideas, books & authors were largely destroyed, "lost", hidden and generally condemned by the Church. In approximately the 11th-12th c. they began to come to light again after having been largely preserved by Arabic and associated scholars, and even then there was considerable friction with the idea that secular/pagan sources should be incorporated into Christian doctrine.
Augustine couldn't be Augustine without Plato and Aquinas couldn't be Aquinas without Aristotle -
"Aquinas was to incorporate Aristotle into the Christian, above all the Roman Catholic, tradition with such intellectual power and coherence that in some areas of thought Aristotelianism and Catholicism became virtually indistinguishable. As one commenter put it, Aquinas converted Aristotle to Christianity and carried out the Baptism himself! In view of Aquinas's heavy dependence on Aristotle, it might rather be said that Aquinas was converted to Aristotelianism" (p 327, Charles Freeman, Closing of the Western Mind).
Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Politics then see Locke and the FFs (Federalist writings parrallels) and give my people a call - we'll do lunch. (see especially Politics on rebellion and Revolution in light of the other discuussions you've been having on Romans.)
You have to get over the idea that there has always been a free flow of information, especially in the west, and that Christianity has ever presented itself and it's acquired ideas as anything other than rooted in ancient Christian tradition - sans pagan and heathen attribution. There is a much broader and older history of ideas than what has been traditionally embraced within orthodox Christian tradition.
I know that you are sincere but before you chide others for not being well enough read in history to comment on the founding you might want to turn that thought on yourself.
RE: the train of ideas in righteousness before god, dominion over earthly man, ruling righteously, destruction of the wicked and the evil-doers, and improving the well-being of mankind
Law Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1790 BC)
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 30, 2009 3:12 PM
I don't generally believe Christians who claim they were once atheists. The type of atheism that makes it possible to convert to Biblical Christianity is a weak one founded in the humanities, rather than the sciences. As a scientific atheist, let me say this: try forcing the round peg of theism into the square hole of reality as it is known by observation and reason, and I'll show you a much more solid grasp on reality. And, of course, it all depends on how round the peg of your theism is. Make it a little square, by denying things like revelation and miracles, and you might make it fit. Make it completely square, by equating god with the universe, and it will fit just fine. But that peg is unrelated to Biblical Christianity.
Posted by: Chuck | July 30, 2009 4:17 PM
jimmiraybob,
I have to go now and do something. If you check in later tonight or Friday morning I will have posted a response to your questions. As far as "Bergas" yes that is it and I am saying it made a statement on human rights. And yes, before the enlightenment.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 5:31 PM
In my experience, it isn't that they were once "weak" atheists who converted, it's that they're essentially flat-out lying (I'm not making a specific claim about you, KoI, that's just been my experience, unfortunately). From engaging several such people in conversation and teasing out their stories, the archtype seems to be that they were in fact believers from early childhood, but that they either didn't go to church, or engaged in 'sinful' behaviour like drug use, promiscuous sex, etc. or just belonged to the "wrong" denomination. After having a 'conversion' experience where they become much more religious or simply join their current denomination, they suddenly and retroactively become "former atheists".
Posted by: DaveL | July 30, 2009 5:34 PM
There is a big difference between "a country founded by people, the majority of whom were probably more-or-less orthodox Christians at the time" and "a Christian country."
In the first, the founding documents can be read with OR without the unwritten assumptions of the founders in mind. If you read them WITH, of course you are going to see them as "Christian." The question is, what happens if you read them WITHOUT those assumptions?
If it's not WRITTEN into the founding documents, I don't think you can assume it is binding or defining or in any way necessary.
Posted by: Chrissl | July 30, 2009 5:34 PM
Jimmieraybob,
I believe I have stated that Aquinas used Aristole's thoughts. But he put God into them and made them better in my mind. Do you have any evidence of Greek thinking that supported Universal Human Rights or inalienable rights? What about from Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism?
But again this is a history debate not about whether the ideas are true but what ideas shaped the founding and where those ideas came from.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 30, 2009 8:05 PM
Do you have any evidence of Greek thinking that supported Universal Human Rights or inalienable rights? What about from Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism?
It's not if I have any evidence, it's is there any evidence that can be found.
I'll just do a little Googling. Let's see, I'll start with "Ancient Greece human rights":
Historical development » Origins in ancient Greece and Rome
Most students of human rights trace the origins of the concept to ancient Greece and Rome, where it was closely tied to the doctrines of the Stoics, who held that human conduct should be judged according to, and brought into harmony with, the law of nature. A classic example of this view is given in Sophocles’ play Antigone, in which the title character, upon being reproached by King Creon for defying his command not to bury her slain brother, asserted that she acted in accordance with the immutable laws of the gods.
In part because Stoicism played a key role in its formation and spread, Roman law similarly allowed for the existence of a natural law and with it—pursuant to the jus gentium (“law of nations”)—certain universal rights that extended beyond the rights of citizenship. According to the Roman jurist Ulpian, for example, natural law was that which nature, not the state, assures to all human beings, Roman citizens or not.
It was not until after the Middle Ages, however, that natural law became associated with natural rights. In Greco-Roman and medieval times, doctrines of natural law concerned mainly the duties, rather than the rights, of “Man.” Moreover, as evidenced in the writings of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, these doctrines recognized the legitimacy of slavery and serfdom and, in so doing, excluded perhaps the most important ideas of human rights as they are understood today—freedom (or liberty) and equality.
and here
and here
and then there's here (Stoics - All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another.)
and so on and so forth.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 30, 2009 10:03 PM
KOI,
I did an prior post on Ancient Greece & Rome that's apparently in moderation. If it doesn't show up I'll repost. But to continue.
Islam does not precede Judaism-Christianity so I won't address it.
How about Persia (Iran)?
The victories to the east led him again to the west and sounded the hour for attack on Babylon and Egypt. When he conquered Babylon, he did so to cheers from the Jewish Community, who welcomed him as a liberator- he allowed the Jews to return to the promised Land. He showed great forbearance and respect towards the religious beliefs and cultural traditions of other races. These qualities earned him the respect and homage of all the people over whom he ruled.
and more here - Because of its commitment to religious tolerance and its policy of ending some forms of forced labor, the Cyrus Cylinder has sometimes been described as the "first charter of human rights," although it reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms.
I think you'll like this second link since the info their starts entering Yaweh time and territory:
According to the British Museum, the cylinder "reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms." [3] It is composed in a form that broadly matches long-standing Babylonian styles and themes, although the use of the first person marks a striking departure from this pattern.[4] The cylinder may be seen as an example of Cyrus seeking the loyalty of his new Babylonian subjects by stressing his legitimacy as king, and showing his respect for the religious and political traditions of Babylonia. It has been regarded for over a century as an instrument of ancient Mesopotamian propaganda.[5][6] In the early 1970s, the Shah of Iran adopted it as a symbol of his reign and celebrating 2,500 years of Iranian monarchy, asserting that it was "the first human rights charter in history",[5][7][8] The cylinder has also attracted attention in the context of the repatriation of the Jews to Jerusalem following their Babylonian captivity[9]; it has generally been viewed as corroboration of the Biblical account in the Book of Ezra (see: Ezra 1.1-6, 6.1-5; Isaiah 44.23-45.8; 2 Chronicles 36.22-23).
There are similarities in the text language to the Law Code of Hammurabi that I cited above and is consistent with over a thousand years of tradition independent of and preceding the Judeo written tradition.
I've only thrown out a few links that at the very least establish a basis of further reading. It's just too late to do more detail. Maybe this weekend.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 30, 2009 10:38 PM
Jimmiraybob,
I did notice that when the Muslim scholars started to translate Aristotle the Caliphates began to become more moderate and usually more prosperous. I think it was the Abbasid dynasty that was influenced the most. I also did a little light reading on Confucious to teach about him and his ideas in my World History class. At first glance some of his writings may have had some of the same effect. At very least when they were applied to the civil service system it brought an undeniable meritocracy and destroyed the hold that Buddhism had over the goverment and culture. This is in the Middle Ages I am talking about.
Paul writes in Romans about Gentiles that are a law onto themselves because they understand God apart from the Torah. That is horrible paraphrase but it is in Romans 2 I think. This is what he was talking about. I, Aquinas, nor God claim that all truth and revelation is in the Bible. What can be known about God can also be known "from what is made". It is called general revelation or I think Aquinas called it natural law.
I see the same tolerance and prosperity in Europe at the time of these ideas and when they were re-infused into the culture by Aquinas. I do think he and Christianity added a few things to it though.
Posted by: King of Ireland | July 31, 2009 9:57 AM
I see the same tolerance and prosperity in Europe at the time of these ideas and when they were re-infused into the culture by Aquinas. I do think he and Christianity added a few things to it though.
You're going to have to document this for me. After the breakup of the Roman Empire, at least in the west which I think you focus on, basic civilized culture collapsed. By the 4th-5th century the western church had pretty much gotten its dogma down and was readily prosecuting heterodoxy. Church tentacles reached into the various governments (often warring against one another) and together they stamped out free inquiry resulting in the terrors of the inquisitions and which hunts.
Jews were relentlessly persecuted and murdered and driven into exile throughout Europe thanks to this church-state partnership - we're not talking just a handful, we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced. All of this driven by Christian anti-semitism - Roman Catholic and Protestant. All of this goes for Pagans and heretics within the church.
Along with the loss of free inquiry there was the vast extermination of non-Christian ideas and the loss of ancient Greek and Roman and other texts on philosophy, law, ethics and science. Advancements in astronomy and medicine shifted from the west to the east where, as you note, the works of Aristotle, Plato, Ptolemy, Pythagorus and Galen (to name just a few) were preserved and in many cases built upon.
And what can we say of how the role of womanhood did not exactly blossom into something beautiful.
Then, in the 11th-16th centuries pagan learning started infiltrating western Europe and voila, suddenly Aquinas (and Aristotle) arrives - during the height of the Spanish Inquisition. He's lucky not to have been put to the torch although he was hounded by his own and parts of his work banned. Eventually the Christianity couldn't keep him and Aristotle out and only after true free-inquiry and the the scientific method start breaking out does Europe and the Americas start teetering on the edge of prosperity and the modern concept of human rights start to take form.
Yes, this comment is an oversimplification but to say that Christianity (now conveniently being repackaged as Judeo-Christianity with few apologies to the Jews), when it came to Europe (or the Americas) brought peace and prosperity and good will for all is just plain uninformed.
Unless we're talking the elite ruling heterodox few.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 31, 2009 10:50 AM
The only thing there is to know about God is that he doesn't exist. What we're talking about here are ethical principles and ideas about government. This term "general" revelation" seems to be nothing more than vaporous nonsense intended to attribute, without justification, the sum total of learning and wisdom acquired by humans through their own investigation to your favourite sky fairy.
If a concept comes from outside your belief system, please be honest to admit it comes from outside your belief system, rather than pretending it somehow obliquely flows from it by some obscure route.
Posted by: DaveL | July 31, 2009 1:12 PM
Unless we're talking the elite ruling heterodox few.
I meant "orthodox few."
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 31, 2009 1:33 PM