FluffyNinja

And I answered in kind here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057580615-post35.html (What does it mean to be a "christian nation")
and here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057580965-post41.html (What does it mean to be a "christian nation")

But then, it seems we may have now reached an impasse and have started going in circles. I believe that our fundamental disagreement now boils down to interpretation of scripture. You've taken the literal translation of the Greek text, or Demotic or Aramaic, and claim that a nation did not have the same connotation 2,000 years ago that it has today. I agree.

But, in using this context to justify the claim that Christ did not intend for his teachings to be applied on a "national" level is to presume that Christ (and his Heavenly Father) did not have the foresight to envision the structure of such states in the future. To me (a Christian) this is "treading thin ice" and I have never presumed to limit the scope of Christ's knowledge of that which would transpire in the future. To do so, would be calling God himself a liar - I dare not do that. He is the Alpha and the Omega, is all-knowing and omnipotent. And to assume that his knowledge of a "nation" or "kingdom" was only limited to the context of a 30-year time period in history, is not giving Him much credit.

I do agree with you on the point that Christianity and Nationalism are contradictary, as Christ says that we should place no love above the love for Him. However; I still contend that a Nation can endure without consistently being Nationalistic. Just taking a look at some of the posters on this thread and their apparent "animocity" toward our government, we can see that Nationalism is a pretty far cry from being considered "alive and well."

__________________
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask, "Where's my government handout?"

niftydrifty

sure, but nationalism and patriotism thrives amongst those that tend to want a Christian nation.

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

FluffyNinja

On this point, I must agree with you. I do love my country and will defend her to the end. I suppose I must be careful that my love of country does not supersede the obligations to my Faith.

the makeout hobo

That is an incredible leap in logic, galen. You go from "we don't have teacher led prayer, because not everyone here is a Christian and that'd be violating their rights" to "Not praying as a class means god doesn't matter". You're going from Point A to Point G, missing a few crucial places in the middle. Care to explain your logic, or is that none of my business too?


No, but they're being forced to materially support with their taxes they don't believe in. What's the difference between you being forced to pay something you don't believe in (Public Schooling) and Mr. Quaker having to support the military with his taxes? That's money that he could just as soon give to World Peace efforts that'd be in line with his religion. Why is it not a violation of the first amendment to make a religious pacifist support the military?


I'm not misrepresenting your position, I just understand the ramifications of it better than you do. The ramifications being that if, by your bizarro logic, its wrong to make you pay for public education because the lack of school prayer violates your beliefs, then its wrong to make other religions pay for things other things they don't believe in. You're looking at the issue and the ramifications with far too narrow a scope. Remember Galen, in the real world, things like this have consequences.

Once again, you're confusing not making a statement at all with making a denial of God. By your logic, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a school to be religiously neutral. Am I right?

Yes, but completely privitizing education would make sure that the least able among us get the worst education. I'm pretty sure that Jesus would rather everyone gets a decent education and can rise out of the slums than that people pray before class. Just saying, "as you have done to the least of me, you have done to me."


No one ever suggested the government should compel people to attend a specific church.

And you've yet to explain why its alright for the government to take money from good religious folk if that taxation will hinder them from worship. Why is it OK?

Just trying to expand my learning, buddy. I've studied the bible under Episcopals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazerines, and a smaller amount under other faiths like the Mormons, and I've never come across that teaching. I'm always looking to deepen my understanding, no reason to get defensive.


Does that mean you'll stop using so many?

Stop. Just stop. Are you telling me that you don't know the difference between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause? WTF? No, we can't have a state-run church because that violates the establishment clause. The clause in question, however, is the free exercise clause. I thought you were against people using strawmen?


Once again, stop misrepresenting my statements. Stop the strawmen. I never said I don't believe in religious freedom, I merely said, and just about every supreme court has agreed with me, that there are occasions where Free Exercise is trumpted by other matters. It's similar to how I can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

__________________
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).Vague is a man of honor

galenrox

How is that a leap in logic at all? People pray because they think God matters, people pray together because they think God matters and people involve God in their education because they think God matters. As a product of this, to not involve God in education is to assert that if there is a God it's of no practical significance. And people are 100% free to believe that if there is a God it's of no practical significance, but they are not free to use the government to provide only schools that share in this theological belief.

I'm not objecting to paying for something I don't believe in, I pay for all kinds of things I don't believe in. I think Social Security and Medicare are absolute **** and I get filled with rage when I think that over a quarter of every dollar I earn goes to those pieces of ****. I'm objecting to being forced to pay for a secular school before I'm free to pay for a religious school, as to be consistent with the first amendment there must either be no attempt to compel education at all or school choice.
You are misrepresenting my position, and I think it's cute that you thought that you understood the ramifications better that I do. The ramification is that school choice is a matter of religious freedom, and as a product of which the government can take no action to push people in the direction of any school in particular, a principle which paying for a school with tax dollars clearly violates.
Yes, it is impossible for a school to be religious neutral.
Hey, I'm all for paying for education. If you're opposed to programs that promote education without compromising school choice so much that you're not willing to pay for education if we had such a system, that's on you. I personally support paying for education and think we should probably spend more on it, but this in no way excuses the first amendment violations that are inherent in disincentivizing any one school over any other.

They're free to take away money that hinders their worship as long as it's spread out evenly. Issues arrive when you're taking money from people of one theological position and giving it to another, like taxing everyone to pay for secular schools. What you're doing is identical to government compelling people to attend a specific church.
I think you should probably look a little bit closer

Trust in the Lord with all of your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your path.
Proverbs 3:5,6

But it's important to acknowledge that even if there was no biblical justification it would make no difference, people are free to believe what they believe.
Have you pointed out a single one?

Both clauses are in question because both are violated. In violating the establishment clause you violate the free exercise clause, it's actually inherent (unless you can suggest a way that violating the establishment clause could possibly not violate the free exercise clause). I'm amused that you think that it has to be one or the other.
The Supreme Court, you mean the same Supreme Court that ruled that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't count?

You are arguing against religious freedom whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

__________________