Tom Ligon wrote:Regarding Judaeo/Christian morality, I'd like to point out that this particular moral reference does require a bit of filtering. We, as a society, have been forced to re-evaluate and cherry-pick this body of history and find those things which we can concur are good and wholesome, and reject those which are abhorrent.
For example, stoning these days is more metaphorical than physical, although we do observe it happening. Physical stoning is abhorrent to western civilization these days, and we condemn it when we see it carried out by Islamic cultures.
I believe stoning is old Testament stuff. Not much of a bible reader, but I seem to remember that bit.
Tom Ligon wrote:
And we've pretty much rejected sacrifice of animals and humans on an alter,
Also old Testament stuff.
Tom Ligon wrote:
although sacrifice is still a core belief of Christianity: the regular symbolic cannibalism of God is a pretty bizarre feature for a modern religion.
Religions start where they start. We would be fine with a religion that incorporate elephants standing on turtles if it brought with it the same established moral doctrines that Christianity produced.
But i'm thinking an essential requirement to the story has to be something within the range of what people will regard as plausibly miraculous.
Tom Ligon wrote:
We've rejected burning witches. We've outlawed polygamy. We've gotten rid of slavery. Our system of justice is more Roman than it is middle-eastern. When we say "Thou shalt not kill", we have a very different meaning than the ancient interpretation that "Thou shalt not murder members of your own tribe, but have at the Other Guys." Although I will admit, our actions are often more in line with the ancient interpretation.
Actually, that commandment is interpreted incorrectly by most Christians. The correct meaning is closer to "thou shalt not murder". Killing is fine. Murdering is not. (Also the "thou shalt not commit adultery" commandment is incorrectly interpreted.)
Tom Ligon wrote:
The uniquely American concept is our First Amendment. The idea that this freedom is part of our very Constitution is not supported by Judeo/Christian heritage. Yet we cherish it, because this country was founded by religious refugees from a century of turmoil in Europe over the emergence of Protestant religions. So we mixed Catholics, Protestants, and smatterings of other beliefs, not to mention inventing a few of our own, such as the Mormons. They all thought the others were damnably wrong. And they all thought the Government should damned well stay out of establishing a State Religion. This essential liberty to chose own belief system is the foundation of our national identity.
I encounter this claim a lot. It is historically incorrect. In 1787, there were official state religions in several of the states. (Seven, I think.) Virginia had but recently done away with it's own official state religion (Anglican) but the understanding that other states had not yet done so was prevalent among the founders.
For example:
Delaware State Constitution Oath of Office, 1776: “I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.”
The intent was not one of creating a blanket religious freedom, the thinking was more along the lines of
"How do we insure that 13 states, many of which have different denominations for their official state religions, work together in a coalition government? "
"I know. We will specify that there must be no religious tests for office." In 1787, it was self evident that the nation would be explicitly Christian, (The constitution itself refers to "Our Lord".)
but the various states were concerned that a particular denomination of Christianity would impose doctrinaire requirements on other states of differing denominations.
But this history has been deliberately obscured and overwritten by people who do not like it. They are history revisionists with an agenda.
Tom Ligon wrote:
Jefferson was hard to pin down on having a formal religion (as was Lincoln). Jefferson wrote quite a bit about the subject. He seems to have been a closet Unitarian, and was a friend and admirer of Joseph Priestley. He responded to critics who claimed he was not a Christian. His responses claimed he was, although he rejected much of biblical teaching as myth, no different from pagan myths such as those of the Greeks or American Indians. He was sure these would be rejected in time by an intelligent population capable of making their own judgements. What he thought would prevail was the underlying ethics of Jesus, which he thought were "excellent". He thought a lot of people purporting to teach Christianity were usurpers of the name, and blowing hot air.
Jefferson was pretty much a Deist, and a deliberate Troublemaker, among other things.
Tom Ligon wrote:
My point in this is that, while we do, in fact, derive morality from the Judaeo/Christian heritage, we do so selectively, after identifying those portions which we know in our hearts are abhorrent.
Such as?
Tom Ligon wrote:
Some of the parts we find abhorrent are, in fact, portions of Judaic law adopted and retained by Islam. So we are not "off the hook" by simply blindly observing some body of moral law that goes back 4 millennia into the sorts of tribal history that is full of the very tribal social failings that are being condemned by almost all posters on this thread.
Such as?
Anyways, beside the point. Since Roosevelt appointed his collection of kook judges to the Federal judiciary, the state has become officially hostile to what used to be the normal expression of religion by the people and their governments.
You cannot rationally claim that Prayer must be banned from Public schools when Officially sanctioned State religions existed before during and after the ratification of the US Constitution. Obviously it does not preclude official state religions, or else they wouldn't have existed concurrent with the adoption of the US Constitution. (Which does itself exempt the President from working on Sundays.)
This business of separating the US Government from non-interference or even advocacy for religion (Military used to be required to attend services every week) is a recent phenomena. (Roosevelt and subsequent courts)
Here's a bit of proof to demonstrate that by 1862 (four score and six years later) the Nation still regarded itself as an expressly Christian nation.
It just doesn't fit the modern fiction that everyone wishes to believe.