Looking forward to your review, ace. Remember, you don't placate.

Ace,

If you see Hugh Hewitt there, tell dat bitch I want my money!

fairy tales in the same way LoTR is

I saw it and I liked it. It is much more kiddie oriented than Lord of the Rings. All the showings were sold out in NYC, which surprised me. I hope it continues to do well.

I thought the Christian allegorical elements were at a tasteful level, but ooh even a little bit of it does it get some secularists' panties in a bunch. Check out the review at Box Office Mojo:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=1958&p=.htm

Here's a closing cheap shot from the review: "Despite Adamson's mitigating efforts, Narnia stands for death, destruction and renunciation of self in a poorly disguised Christian fairy tale."

Apparently, to depict death and destruction is also to "stand for" it. The movie, like Lord of the Rings, is a treatment of a theme revelant to World War II, when Lewis and Tolkien were writing: that ordinary men might have to be brave and to fight and sacrifice to defeat evil. That this ordinary theme is considered by our bien pensants to be not just unpersuasive but actually repulsive 'Christian propaganda' reveals a lot about how our elites think, and doesn't bode well for our struggle against the Islamists. The reviewer can't identify the utility of bravery or self-sacrifice not just in our age, but in the age when Lewis was writing. Apparently, the Nazis could have been defeated just as well with cowardice and self-indulgence as with bravery and sacrifice, at least according to the Scott Hallorans of the world. Apparently, in our age the man has much company.

Dude hated King Kong, too.

caspera,

Nice comment and, imho, you're absolutely correct in your observations. As Samwise says, "There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for". Many seem to be besides themselves with worry that this movie might actually be good AND have a real Christian message.

Ace,

Figures you'd be at the movies when you get a link from the Corner by Barbra's favorite new LA Times columnist...

Hope you said Hi to Coco for me (that'd be Ice-T's squeeze)

I'm thinking "$23.9M Friday Night" means it took in $10 million about $13.9 million ago.

It's too bad about Scott Holleran, who runs boxofficemojo.com, as I used to enjoy his writing but then he went totally off the deep end. I never really noticed anything partisan in any of his articles until one day he was ranting about some law that supposedly Bush himself pushed through Congress that in essence gave the government full control of the film industry. No, I'm not kidding. As I was reading this I just kept thinking if this were true I think I would have heard something from somebody as I'm pretty well read. Then as he's ranting against Bush & Co., he busted out a lot of the standard moonbat conspiracy theories (Patriot Act exists solely to destroy the Bill of Rights, etc.) as if they were accepted truth. Ever since then he seems to have a lefty edge to every damn thing he writes.

(Actually, this may have really started with The Passion of the Christ. I believe he hated that movie with a, uh, passion.)

The wife and I just saw Narnia and we both thought it was good. I wouldn't go so far as to say "great", but a good, solid movie. I've read all the Narnia books, both as a child and an adult, so part of it was the fun of seeing it come to life so realistically. I'm not sure if it will be as much fun for those who haven't read the books.

As for how obvious the Christian allegory is, I think it's pretty obvious. The funny thing is though to me it stands out less than it might to someone who's never read the books, since when I read them as a kid I didn't get the allegory at all, so my reaction was just based on the events in the book, and I think over subsequent readings I still feel mostly as I did originally, though I now see the (obvious) parallels.

I'm thinking "$23.9M Friday Night" means it took in $10 million about $13.9 million ago.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Did someone claim it would only make $10 million?

Hmmm, I guess Scott Holleran isn't a leftist. He's an Ayn Rand libertarian:

At the end of a horrible year for America—a city in ruins, the loss of individual rights and a war of self-sacrifice—it is obvious that Ayn Rand's noble vision of man is far from becoming real. But on this Thanksgiving, one hundred years after she was born, it is also obvious that she never let that vision go.

Here's his "sky is falling" article that I mentioned earlier. I had forgotten that he took a shot at Hillary as another religious fanatic at the end of it:

Faced with three more years of the American republic's first full-fledged Christian presidency, the studios ought to knock off the bootlicking and band together to defend their rights. With Senator Clinton waiting to institute her brand of religious fundamentalism in the White House—and lefties please note it was video game regulator Hillary who proposed outlawing divorce for couples with children in her book, It Takes a Village—Hollywood hasn't a moment to lose.

Yikes. I guess the point here is that if a movie has any sort of positively portrayed religious theme (as Narnia does) then you can probably just skip the Scott Holleran review because you already know what he's going to say.

Bob - Chris Mathews is spofing the real Chris Mathews who said something incredibly stupid a few days ago: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/141567.php

Coco is a porn star? I would never have guessed!

I saw Narnia on Friday night and was disappointed insofar as I wanted to see a great movie and saw only a good movie. Somehow it just misses and I can't put my finger on it -- the acting was solid, the sets were great, the final battle scene was spectacular, and yet I walked away from the theater saying "well, it was ok."

It needs to have a $50 mil weekend to do well, I think. $70 mil would be fantastic.

Most movie reviewers are self-hating homosexuals.

I'm just sayin'.

Most movie reviewers are self-hating homosexuals.

That's why they always pan the father-son movies.

Right. And they applaud the films that "explore" homosexuality, depression, divorce, and unusual roles of gender.

They really do hate films that are not ambiguous about good and evil. Is it any surprise that the homosexuals are latching onto the Randian/Libertarian philosophy -- all the good thing of a capitalist society without all the moralistic judgement from the religions.

It's like the libertarians are saying Okay, we like what you've built here, Judeo-Christians, in America, now get take your morals and get the fuck out, we'll take it from here.

Can you imagine giving a group of Ayn Rand-loving Libertarians a virtually empty land like America (circa 1700)?
The result would be a Romanesque Empire that would implode or be conquered within 100 years.

You all probably wonder why I rant about the harmful homosexual agenda quite frequently. It is because I feel it is as harmful as the other parts of the liberal/leftist agenda: anti-corporation, anti-religion, anti-white male.

Why would you want to discard the very thiings that made this a great county: Religion, Family, and Community, to replace them with: Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Race?

Ace reviews movies, so what are you two really saying?

Maybe, Brokeback Mtn shd have been released on Father's Day?

Josie, if Ace doesn't like Narnia because of the religious overtones, he is probably gay. Or, it means he is Michael Newdow.

I'm going with gay.

It's like the libertarians are saying Okay, we like what you've built here, Judeo-Christians, in America, now get take your morals and get the fuck out, we'll take it from here.

Yeah, it's sobering to be reminded, as Hollaran does, that there are elements in the patchwork quilt of conservatism, with whom I mostly agree with on economic issues, who nevertheless are every bit as foaming-at-the-mouth hostile toward religion in general and Christianity in particular as any deranged leftist moobat.

The idea that ethics can't be separated from religion is morally retarded. Can you guys really not see any way to figure out that it's wrong to hit old ladies upside the head and steal their stuff unless a giant grownup in the sky tells you so?

Saw the movie tonight with my wife. Solid B+. The child actors were surprisingly good, the script well-written, and the Ice Queen perfectly cast.

Another poster said it was good, but not great and couldn't put his finger on why. Although I think this movie couldn't have been done any better, I've always thought that The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe was a little goofy. Seeing a beaver in chain mail is so absurd that it's hard for me to get past it. Good movie. Slightly flawed story to begin with.

And, yes, it's nothing more than a retelling of the crucifiction of Christ. Big deal. It's not all preachy and whatnot. I don't understand why the more evangelical athiests always find shit to get worked up about.

The idea that ethics can't be separated from religion is morally retarded. Can you guys really not see any way to figure out that it's wrong to hit old ladies upside the head and steal their stuff unless a giant grownup in the sky tells you so?

I'm not going to defend everything Bart wrote, but yes, you can separate ethics from religion, but its the same as cutting a boat from its mooring. The boat can stay in the same place, just as if it were anchored, but you have to work like crazy to keep it there.

It's easy to know it's wrong to bash old ladies in the head when there's a law that says "don't bash old ladies in the head or you'll go to jail." When the lawmakers (being human) make mistakes and tell you it's just fine and dandy to smash Grandma in the skull, that's when you need to look to somewhere else.

S. Weasel, that's what the IRS is for, you know like the police and gun control and stuff.

When the lawmakers (being human) make mistakes and tell you it's just fine and dandy to smash Grandma in the skull, that's when you need to look to somewhere else.

Where did that happen? You'd have to be something other than merely human to make that kind of mistake.

If you're sincerely helpless to sort out the easy questions without the Magic Book, I'm a little scared of sharing a country with you.

S. Weasel, consider yourself SMITED!

Or is it smote?

I can never remember.

i felt the movie gave me the exact same feelings that reading the book gave me, if that means anything. especially the scenes with the white witch. but i'm just a religious fanatic who doesn't know anything about art or film, soo.....

Shouldn't that be "smitten"?

Smitten, smote, smoted smited.

Whatever.

God's got you on his list, and He's got a direct line to Santa, so that 360 you were expecting?

Forget about it.

Where did that happen? You'd have to be something other than merely human to make that kind of mistake.

No, we'd like to think that a human couldn't do those sorts of things, but we'd be wrong.

If you're sincerely helpless to sort out the easy questions without the Magic Book, I'm a little scared of sharing a country with you.

You scare too easily. You would have been scared of those people whose "magic book" told them it wasn't right to enslave another human being forever, even while the lawmakers and supposedly rational, enlightened people around them told them otherwise. You would have been scared of the men and women who stood up to the descendants of those very same "enlightened" people who withheld civil rights from the descendants of the slaves.

Me, I'm scared of people who think that human rights are issued at the whim of government and not granted by a Creator. When nothing is above the people in government, then they stop at nothing.

No, we'd like to think that a human couldn't do those sorts of things, but we'd be wrong.

Human beings do all sorts of shitty things. Including human beings who regard themselves as Christians (that's most 20th Century Germans accounted for).

The idea that if you don't believe in the priesthood then you must believe in the legislature is astonishingly bankrupt. They represent two different ways to bend over and spread your cheeks for authority. Thanks, no. I can work out the grandmother question all by myself without either.

Narnia SUCKED. It was completely unbelievable. I'm not saying that it wasn't believable because of the subject, cause LOTR was completely believable. But this film expected us to believe that some dickbag english kid enters Narnia, Santa Claus gives him a fucking sword, and after a minute of training he's leading a goddamn army into battle, swinging that blade from horseback. And the whole Santa thing was more deus ex machina than Q giving 007 the lazer watch that you know he'll use once to extract himself from a tight situation later in the movie. None of the characters got any kind of development whatsoever. Consequently, I didn't give a shit for any of them. Esp. that faggot with the turkish delight. You ever eat turkish delight? Nasty shit. And that midget? Fuck that midget and his faggot beard. And speaking of faggots, that queen was a fucking man, and you know it. What a skanky, ugly transvestite that thing was. Overall an awful experience. Download it, don't watch it in the theater.

Stupid religious nuts, I hate sharing a country with them and their unscientific, irrational ideas like "All Men Are Created Equal" with those airy "Unalienable Rights" and stuff.

It's nigh un-American.

These days.

Apparently mcgurk was expecting some sort of documentary.

Do you guys actually read history, or do you cut right to commenting on it?

The Enlightenment was hardly a Christian tent revival. It was at most vaguely deist; a whole lotta God, and a little Jesus when cornered.

Coach McGurk was my favorite character in Home Movies.

I have a feeling that his opinion of Narnia would have been similar, but they'd have bleeped large chunks of that.

mcgurk, it was originally written as a children's book and with the kind of character development you see in childrens' books. I remember reading the series as a child. Part of the problem was that this particular movie comes from the second book and sort of starts mid-stream. For the same theme but written for an adult audience you need to read the "Hideous Strength" series. I saw it and agree that it was about a B+ for an adult. I think. I was sitting next to a six year old (I had no idea who she was) and the kid kept asking questions. Not surprisingly since a lot of the development of the stroy was either in the first book or in history. (London Blitz eg.)

Yeah, that vague diety guy. What's another word for him? Imaginary friend?

Giant grown up in the sky... something like that. Yeah.

Silly.

I come up with my own morality on the fly.

Luckliy, it hews pretty close to what my parents taught me, that their parents taught them and I like to pretend it didn't come from the Magic Book written by the Grownup in the Sky because then it might make me feel a little churlish.

Human beings do all sorts of shitty things. Including human beings who regard themselves as Christians (that's most 20th Century Germans accounted for).

You're right, of course, that goes without saying. What you have not acknowledged, though, is that lawmakers told that young man and thousands like him that killing women and children (and grandmothers) was just fine and dandy, and they did it.

You asked for an example, and I provided it. There are many, many, many others in history, but I chose one with photographic evidence, and one that I have a personal interest in.

The idea that if you don't believe in the priesthood then you must believe in the legislature is astonishingly bankrupt. They represent two different ways to bend over and spread your cheeks for authority.

You must be a former Catholic. Only a Catholic would conflate a book with a priesthood. I never mentioned priests; my religion doesn't really have them.

I'm sorry you don't take Thomas Jefferson at his word about how a government should view its duties. Jefferson didn't kowtow to any priesthood either, if I remember correctly.

Thanks, no. I can work out the grandmother question all by myself without either.

I'm sure you can; it's quite easy to do when your society and upbringing, steeped in religion (historically anyway,) have already done the heavy lifting for you.

So tell me, why is hurting an old woman bad? Who says so? If it became legal, as it did in Germany not so long ago, what would be wrong with it? And yes, I know it's wrong, but I would just like to see where your boat's anchored, so to speak.

So, we have all agreed that hitting old ladies is bad (or so we mean wrong?). Kind of an easy one. What about the more subtle ones. Is there an innate sense of right and wrong common to all people? Or is it just a "cultural thing"? Then which cultural is right and which is wrong. Or is there no right and wrong, only consensus among "rational" people? Which, to me, boils down to might makes right. Crude arguments, just tryin to see what ya'll think.

and I see Sue is less crude and quicker to boot, you go girl.

Talk to all of you tomorrow, it's late. Have some fun beating up on PLV, Tubby, and the other trolls.

My point was that America is the country we know and love because of he Judeo-Christian foundation it was built upon. My critiscism is towards those who scoff at that fact and believe a libertarian type of government could build an equally successful country as America.

Europe is secular, how they doing?
How are the average Swede's ethics compared to the average American's?
Different, no?
Why is that?

Not sure; it's got something to do with their parents, though, right? 8^D

I think that a great deal of what we think of as 'natural morality' is a result of a sort of moral evolution.

Those societies which have, for instance, ethical systems which prohibit random acts of murder and inbreeding and encourage some degree of cooperation will in the long run be more likely to endure (and thus pass on those ethics) than those societies whose ethical systems do not.

Ethical codes are to societies what DNA is to organisms.

ummm....Aparrently off-topic, but the movie rocked.

Ethical codes are to societies what DNA is to organisms.
Posted by Scott Free at December 11, 2005 12:19 AM

Not only do societies with more advanced moral codes survive and spread, but lesser moral societies borrow from their betters. Japan, for instance, didn't view human life with high regard a few generations ago. We beat them in a war, and gave them a constitution, but that can't explain all of the changes their society has undergone in sixty years.

We seem to have an inate sense of 'perfect' morality, that humans throughout history are trying to move toward. A strictly materialistic viewpoint doesn't explain our highest moral actions, such as sacrificing our lives for others, sometimes even strangers. I think we are guided by something beyond ourselves.

I also agree with Sue Dohnim about the Judeo-Christian roots of America having a profound influence on the founding fathers, and even our society today. We are standing on the shoulders of generations of Christians -- I can acknowledge their contributions, even though I'm not a Christian.

Besides, I hate atheists. Effing French, that's what that is.

"unless a giant grownup in the sky tells you so?"

"There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of "Heaven" ridiculous by saying they do not want "to spend eternity playing harps." The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them."

C.S. Lewis (since we're on the subject), "Mere Christianity"

*

Okay, it doesn't *100%* apply, since you were being facetious about Xianity as source of morality, not the afterlife.

But the sentiment is applicable enough for (faith-based) government work.

I seem to remember from other posts of yours that you're a "been there, done that" guy rather than someone who just doesn't know what he's talking about? (Could be misremembring).

So don't consider this witnessing, just a Flanders version of a flame war. (Yes, something's flaming here, all right ...)

Yes, Knemon's a crypto-cultist. Whoda thunk?

*

Okay, fine, I'll spell it out.

God isn't a "grownup."

God isn't actually "giant" because he doesn't have a body.

And so on.

"The idea that if you don't believe in the priesthood then you must believe in the legislature is astonishingly bankrupt."

"Believing in the priesthood" =/= "Believing in God."

Unless you're a papist.

I keeeeed.

Okay, I'm done for real this time.

C.S. Lewis (since we're on the subject), "Mere Christianity"*

That is a great book. I think it goes a long way toward proving some sort of higher power, something I didn't believe could be done. It doesn't come close to proving Christianity, as he intended, but he certainly makes atheism look bad.

“A strictly materialistic viewpoint doesn't explain our highest moral actions, such as sacrificing our lives for others, sometimes even strangers.”

Not if you think of Society as the organism instead of the individual. Societies whose moral code encourages individuals to acts of self-sacrifice and altruism have survival advantages over those that do not.

“I also agree with Sue Dohnim about the Judeo-Christian roots of America having a profound influence on the founding fathers, and even our society today. We are standing on the shoulders of generations of Christians -- I can acknowledge their contributions, even though I'm not a Christian.”

Agreed. Even though I am technically an agnostic on matters of religion, I do consider myself to be a “Cultural Christian,” and I have a profound respect for the accumulated wisdom of human tradition. Whether you think moral codes evolved over millennia or were handed down from on high, in either case, they came from worthy sources.

Pfah. No one can make atheism look worse than a practicing atheist.

IMHO, religious spirituality is either inspired by a greater power that humans should strive to understand... or it is a superior evolutionary trait, as evidenced by the dominance of religious belief all through human history.

Those crazy people who believe in a big invisible grownup in the sky might be wrong, but they flourish for a good reason. A thoughtful person should take that a little more seriously.

Well, hell, Scott Free was saying the same thing I was trying to, but better while I was typing. THIS MEANS IT IS TIME FOR BED

Re : Mere Christianity...Currently working my way through. In general I like it, although not as I expected it to be. It still has that huge leap that requires enough faith to take the view that God does exist and that is why X,Y & Z, instead of observing X,Y & Z which means God exists.

I decided to read it after buying the Chronicles of Narnia for my son who is now only 2 months old. Yes, I know he's too young, but I wanted to buy the hardback set before the only version you can find has pictures of a CGI lion, a bunch of kid actors on, and 'Now a major motion picture' plastered all over it (like they did with LOTR).

Regarding societies build on Judeo-Christian values, one only need to compare to societies built on other religions / cults. While it might be clear that you shouldn't smack grannie upside the head, it should also be clear that killing your sister for dating the wrong guy is bad. However, given the presence of honor killings in some cultures, this is obviously not the case.

While it may seem to you that smacking grannie is wrong, that is mostly because you were raised in a culture that is based on Judeo-Christian values, if you were not, it is very likely that smacking granny, or stabbing your sister 57 times for dating someone with a mole on his forehead would be perfectly normal.

If you're sincerely helpless to sort out the easy questions without the Magic Book, I'm a little scared of sharing a country with you.

Now there's some drama for you! I think Weasel is a veteran of the usenet religion debates. He's got all the talking points down pat. What it seems to boil down to though, with most (but not all) atheists, is they feel that they are in the enlightened 5% of the planet while the remaining 95% of us are just drooling morons who need an imaginary friend. Of course their belief system takes much more faith then believing in the Big Fairy in the Sky! Ahhh, sweet irony.

Hmph. Okay. How to disentangle the morning after dogpile? I know, with a disjointed bullet list!

Lots of crappy, immoral things were done in the name of Christianity -- especially earlier, when it was fresh and not completely thought through. The Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials. Leave us not forget why medieval priests went into battle armed with maces. So Christian thought is not the font of all morality. One could make the argument that it has become a force for good in direct proportion to the weakening of fundamentalist belief in it. In fact, one could make that argument about a lot of religions. Islam being newer and rawer (and possibly intrinsically ill adapted to a civil society).

Jefferson used God to make the case for the Republic the way Bush used WMD to make the case for war Iraq -- they didn't think the public would go for it without but, in hindsight, it probably wasn't either man's best argument. Jefferson is a pin up girl for libertarians, by the way. His writings are hugely libertarian in flavor. And I think I've seen one passage that references Jesus as important to his philosophy; he's usually carefully rationalist and vaguely deist. Why is that? If Christianity is the underpinning of it all, why not more Jesus in our founding documents? Surely, there was nobody much to offend in 1775.

The Enlightenment was a secular movement in a time of religious feeling, not the other way around. I use "priesthood" as shorthand for religion. I am not now nor have I ever been a Catholic; if religions are invented by men, the priests, broadly, are the men inventing them. With this in mind, it's amusing to have Lewis quoted at me in support of an argument.

People have been struggling to define good and evil both in and out of the presence of religion since thousands of years before Jesus was a gleam in...oh, okay. This is largely what philosophy is about. Much of this thought was crystallized in Renaissance times into what they called Humanism. Yes, I know the priests have told you this is a word of derision.

Europe, of course, is not a secular place. It was the original Empire of Christ. They have latterly lost their faith in everything, from Jesus to free markets. Personally, I'd much rather live in a place with free markets and no Jesus than with Jesus and no free markets. That would be yes to Hong Kong and no to Mexico.

Finally, Christianity has been hugely influential and largely beneficial in America. Why some people need morality handed to them from external authority I don't know, but they clearly do and it is therefore probably hopeless to try and build a civil society without that authority. I often find myself in the uncomfortable position of sticking up for Christianity against atheism. I found the Narnia books charming, for example, and a movie version that wasn't played as a Christian allegory would be absurd (though for a Christian, Lewis was awfully fond centaurs and fauns). I would have left this thread in peace if Bart hadn't somehow decided modern Hollywood was a steel cage match between Jesus and Ayn Rand. The idea that Hollywood = libertarian = homosexuality is only true if libertarian = that thing I don't like. Philosophically and in the voting booth, actual libertarians nearly always break right -- a thing to remember now that we've all gotten comfortable having our guy sit in the big leather chair.

Mea Culpa.
I admit to antagonizing an argument by pulling the homo/libertarian thing out of thin air in a Narnia thread.

The reason, one of the reasons, I do it is because I'm trying to define myself ideologically. Another reason is because I tend to (over)-analyze the motives of people's actions and the implications of those actions.

Oh. Well. Hardline libertarians are pretty boring, humorless people, judging by the ones arguing on the internet. They try to jam everything into the libertarian template and accept no fudging. Me, I'm a great fan of fudging. Sometimes duct tape is necessary to make things work. Most people who self identify as libertarian do so in the way that people who cut out bread and potatoes self-identify as doing the Atkins diet: they get the broad concept and adopt enough of it to be effective, but would be bored silly adhering to the orthodox version.

As for Ayn Rand...I think you really have to read her as a teenager to enjoy her much. Her philosophy holds together well enough, but all those rock-jawed Slab Hardchest morally incorruptible guys really get tedious after a while. And the woman's sexual tastes clearly ran to rape fantasies, which is just...ick.

But this film expected us to believe that some dickbag english kid enters Narnia, Santa Claus gives him a fucking sword, and after a minute of training he's leading a goddamn army into battle, swinging that blade from horseback.

I think that was explained better in the book. It didn't strike me while watching the movie, but now that I think about it, yeah, that wasn't very believable.

And speaking of faggots, that queen was a fucking man, and you know it. What a skanky, ugly transvestite that thing was.

No, the queen wasn't a man...although the actress that played the queen did at one point play a character that started out as a man and then inexplicably turned into a woman one day (explained by her standing in front of a mirror naked and nonchalantly saying, "same person...different body"). This was in the worst movie of all time, Orlando.

So where is Ace's review?

I haven't seen the movie yet, but if I remember right, one of the conversations early in the book describes Narnia under the rule of the Witch, as a winter where Christmas never comes. So Santa (Father Christmas) showing up was a sign of the weakening of her powers. I don't know if that was explained in the movie.

Kind of like a lot of things in LOTR that didn't make a lot of sense - or made much more sense only if you had read the books.

And while this was the first book written in the series, the prequel "The Magicians Nephew" does a better job explaining a lot of the background of Narnia. Which I suppose is why it's put first in most collected works of the series.

Is there a Judeo-Christian influence that exists in the foundation of this grand American Experiment? Naturally, there is. However, whenever someone points it out they leave out, by design, the other equally or more influential influences, some of which were in reaction against the Judeo-Christian philosophy or that predated the dominence of Christianity in Europe.
One of the most significant influences on American jurisprudence was, and still is, English common law. That law has its roots in a) pagan Anglo-Saxon law and governance, b) Norman-French law and governance (itself a fusion of pagan and Christian philosophies), and c) nearly 600 years of changing political, social and economic environments.
Where are the biblical passages regarding elections, juries, or seperation of powers? Actually, where the Bible most influenced European law and governance, was in the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. In most Germanic societies a king was elected by tribal leaders, and the position was not inheretible. However, in the Bible, there is not one instance that I am aware of where 'the people' were ever trusted to render such a decision. From Exodus onward, the only people who were entrusted with leadership had received some divine sanction.
While it is true that today the more repressive cultures do not follow the Bible, what is ironic is that they are actually following laws and rules that are set out in the Bible far better than those who do claim to follow the Bible. Honor killings? Explicitly sanctioned in the Bible. Rape victims? Expected to marry the man who raped them, unless she was married, in which case the rapist would be killed for besmirching another man's property. Where in the Bible is there any declaration that 'All men are created equal?' About the best you can find is in the New Testament where Paul goes on about how there is no one without sin. But even he stops short of a declaration of equality -- slaves are reminded that they are just slaves, and that they should just try to be the best little slaves that they can be.
The roots of both the Koran and Bible are in nomadic Semitic tribal customs. Where the West has advanced is that those customs are largely ignored.

So, does Christianity lay at the root of America's foundation?
Absolutely, yes. But not exclusively.

Oh, and there's some movie.

Christianity, Deism, Ayn Rand, homosexual reviewers...blah blah blah, blah blah. I thought we were all just wasting time until Ace posted his review.

WHERE THE HELL IS ACE'S REVIEW ALREADY?

Screw Ace's review. I want Coco's review.

With pictures.

The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness,

Honor killings? Explicitly sanctioned in the Bible.

Lets take this one step at a time. Please guide me to this passage, please. I'm not cherry picking your assertions, just seeing if you're intellectually honest or just trying to get a flame war started.

BTW, I agree with your larger point that more than Judeo-Christian ethics and values have shaped our society but you conveniently overlook the fact that Christian people were the designers and advocators of a system of government that would prevent a theocracy. How about that for a bunch of crazy bible thumpers?!

Sorry, last one was mine.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Leviticus 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

To start with. There's others.

Most of the Christians who were among the founding fathers were far more 'liberal' than the fundamentalists of today, in any case. What some people are trying to do is establish the case that Christianity was the predominent influence on the founding of America, which is quite simply not at all the historical fact. Christianity was one influence among many, and not even a dominent influence at that -- unless you want to argue that the Enlightenment values that DID play the most essential role were shaped by their growth out of opposition to the influences of religion in Europe. For which there is a case. But, in that case, the major Christian influence would be negative, in that the founders were informed as to what they did not want.
Personally, I think that is unfair, but it is an argument with some historical validity. Far more validity than the supposition that the Constitution was in its entirity solely derived from Christianity.

Yes, all of the founders were informed by their faith, be it Quaker, Anglican, Deist or Baptist. But what united them all regardless of sect was their shared understanding of the Enlightenment and their shared commitment to the long-established English common law.

I didn't want you to feel bad, so I left my name out of the above post on purpose.

Yeaaaaah. That's the ticket.

"This is largely what philosophy is about. Much of this thought was crystallized in Renaissance times into what they called Humanism. Yes, I know the priests have told you this is a word of derision."

Bitch, please.

(a) I wouldn't know what "the priests" say because I'm not Catholic. Nor am I a regular churchgoer. Call me an agnostic with theist urges, or something.

(b) Yes, the argument of a mechanical universe vs. a created/ruled one was going on long before Jeebus was born. Humanism was around in a recognizable form in 5th century Greece (Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things.").

*

" it is very likely that smacking granny, or stabbing your sister 57 times for dating someone with a mole on his forehead would be perfectly normal."

This is BS. Honor killings aren't "perfectly normal" even in the societies that do them, they're gross symptoms of those societies' pathological structures.

If they really were "perfectly normal" - that is, if they were really than the NORM, rather than a rare event [even one which elements of the culture, very influential elements, condone/rationalize] - then, uh, they'd be the norm. Most relationships would end in atavistic violence, rather than a stable relationship. This is clearly not the case - no society so constructed would ever last more than a generation.

People (not all of them, but actual real people, individuals with consciences, not mere repositories of demographic trends) within these honor-killing cultures have the ability to decide that they are wrong. This itself defeats the "strong version" of relativism. (Unless you think that e.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali hasn't recognized the *truth* that the culture she came out of is wrong - she's just imbibed Western values to the point where she's switched from one cultural matrix to another. Which sounds an awful lot like postmodern bullshit. To me).

Basic moral categories and concepts vary less than you'd think from listening to the way a lot of Westerners talk these days.

Societies define inc est differently, but the *category* of inc est is universal. Ditto murder (vs. lawful killing).

Now that doesn't answer the question of origins - evolutionary psychology? "herd instinct?" something inherent to the condition of self-reflective consciousness itself? - but it does go some distance towards rebutting the relativist/radical individualist argument.

*

" it's amusing to have Lewis quoted at me in support of an argument."

But that's not what I was doing. I was quoting him to point out your rhetorical fallacy (call it the Fallacy of Caricaturing Others' Opinions in Kindergarten Talk, I don't know if there's a technical term for it already). I wasn't making any sort of argument.

Just pointing out that the "grownup in the sky" mockery is arglebargle. And it isn't specific to Christianity, by the way, but to any monotheism - monotheism not being limited to the 3 Abrahamic religions, but including many of the first wave of Greek "humanist"/sophist philosophers.

Any monotheist who also associates that god/"Bob"/Flying Spaghetti Monster with goodness, believes in a "huge grownup in the sky." Okay. Well any libertarian believes in a Romantic atomic brooding Byronic individual cast against the harsh chains of law and custom. That's just as lame. It's an adolescent lameness instead of a childish one (like the need for a Sky-Daddy), but it's still lame.

I'm not Atom Bomb, but I think I can field this one. First, what are "honor killings" exactly? I believe that it means if a woman has premarital sex, then she will be killed to protect the honor of her family. This includes if she is raped.

Assuming we're in agreement on that...

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 describes what to do if a husband finds his wife is not a virgin on their wedding night:

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, he shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

I guess one minor difference is the community as a whole kills the woman to protect their honor rather than her family alone doing it to protect the family's honor.

A few verses later we have these rules (Deuteronomy 22:23-28), which certainly don't mesh well with our current conceptions of justice:

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

So...if raped in town, you'd better scream loud enough to be rescued, or you will be killed along with your rapist. If you are "rescued" from your rapist, then he will be punished by having to marry you. As an additional punishment, he can't divorce you.

Anyway, I got a bit off track there, but I think the first part I quoted is essentially an honor killing...

Yes. Old Testament law looks a little too close to Shari'a. Gives the modern world (the part of it that's not trying to implement Shari'a, that is), the willies.

We get from this simple observation - moral understanding has evolved over time - to "theists need a big Sky Daddy telling them what to do" ... how, again?

If your quarrel is with theocrats, you simply won't find many of them in our country today. People who think the Bible is the inerrant word of god? Plenty of those. Call them fundamentalists if you want - it won't hurt their feelings. They don't think it's a bad word.

People who want to implement it, wholesale, as law? Sure, there are some. There are also some who still think Marx Is All You Need. Tiny, pathetic minorities.

That's not even getting into the status of Old Testament law *in Christianity*.

Knemon, I don't know if you were addressing me, but my quarrel is with nobody. I was merely answering the question of where honor killings are condoned in the Bible.

I am not anti-Christian, and I enjoyed The Chronicles of Narnia books and movie. I was just stating facts.

Atom and Bob,

I totally disagree with your interpretation that Deuteronomy 20 can be put in the same category as 'honor killing' as we understand it today with regards to Sharia law. Be that as it may, I'm happy to say that since about 2000 years ago, we no longer have to be bound by the law of the Old Testament (see the book of Romans for details :) ). Because we're discussing Christian influence on the foundations of our government this was a bit of a red herring on your part anyway. I'm working today so I'm a little constrained as to how much time I can put into our discussion but I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

P.S. All societies have had moral laws and the degree to which punishment was handed out is very consistent in the ancient world. Thankfully, not so today with the aforementioned exception.

Brew Fan,

Very disappointing response. First, I don't see how anything is a "red herring", since regardless of what got us to this point you directly asked the question. Second, you just assert that you disagree with an "interpretation" of Deuteronomy without giving any inkling as to why. I know you say you're short on time, but perhaps you should have waited until you had some time before responding.

If you do find the time, perhaps you could explain specifically what in Deuteronomy's laws that I cited does not qualify as an honor killing? The only difference I can see, which I consider a small one, is the community as a whole kills the woman instead of just her family. To me that is a minor detail, especially to the victim.

Again, I'm certainly not anti-Christian in any way. I just think that we shouldn't deny things are in the Bible if they actually are. It's fine if you personally believe that Jesus rendered most of the OT obsolete, but saying something "is in the Bible" is still true even if by your interpretation it is a law that is no longer in effect.

Be that as it may, I'm happy to say that since about 2000 years ago, we no longer have to be bound by the law of the Old Testament (see the book of Romans for details :) ).
Ahh this explains why the bits about homosexuality are so studiously avoided, then, and why there's no huge issue regarding the Ten Commandments.
I was going to get worried for a second. But it does rather put an end to the idea of 'Judeo-Christian' as an aspect of the American experience if we jettison the whole 'Judeo-' part.

Also, I have issued a fatwa decreeing that my whole Unitarian Jihadi nom de guerre must be used. You have all been warned. Know that the penalties are severe. Emerson and Whitman poetry readings are among them. Kumbaya will be sung. Cruel, perhaps. Inhuman, possibly. Painful, certainly.

I just think that we shouldn't deny things are in the Bible if they actually are.

The problem is that almost everything is in the Bible, and what is not is justified.

The truth of the matter is that if you are going to look for justification to do something in the Bible or Sharia or wherever, you will find it. This is dangerously close to "the end justifies the means." Fascism by any other name ...

It is imperative on every individual to define their own course of action and to realize that there are limits to what can be justified. Whoever performs murder, regardless of the source of religious "justification," is wrong, and worse, horribly arrogant in claiming to be the Hand of God.

I just think that we shouldn't deny things are in the Bible if they actually are.

The problem is that almost everything is in the Bible, and what is not is justified.

The truth of the matter is that if you are going to look for justification to do something in the Bible or Sharia or wherever, you will find it. This is dangerously close to "the end justifies the means." Fascism by any other name ...

It is imperative on every individual to define their own course of action and to realize that there are limits to what can be justified. Whoever performs murder, regardless of the source of religious "justification," is wrong, and worse, horribly arrogant in claiming to be the Hand of God.

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody's murdering anyone and claiming they're the Hand of God.

What's going on is that in the midst of a discussion Atom Bomb said honor killings were condoned in the Bible, and Brew Fan challenged him on this point, asking for a cite. He got it and just dismissed clear language by asserting he didn't "interpret" it that way.

The issue is whether the Bible sanctions honor killings in Deutoronomy. It seems clear to me that it in fact does. Whether those laws are meant to be in effect today for Christians is another issue. Even if they are not, it is still not correct to say there is nothing in the Bible sanctioning honor killings, at least not with some kind of valid explanation of how the verses cited do not qualify as honor killings.

What the hell are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?

The issue is whether the Bible sanctions honor killings in Deutoronomy. It seems clear to me that it in fact does.

Agreed. Thus my point.

Nobody's murdering anyone and claiming they're the Hand of God.

If you use a book, say one that is explicitly endorsed by God, or one that is by "his only prophet," as an authority for murder, then you are implicitly making yourself a means of imposing policy.

Pardon the poetic license. Oliver Stone does it all the time and noone from the right ever bitches.

Oh and the line and what is not is justified. should be and what is not is justified later.

Bob,

Sorry to disappoint you but you won't be the first to be able to make that claim. I asked the question because its easy to say "The bible says it ok to kill people" and not having a clue as to context or content. Atom and yourself suprised me by actually wanting to exchange ideas instead of throwing out old tropes for the sole purpose of ripping believers. However, if you truly can't see the difference between a society having laws (whether you agree with them or not) and having a trial to determine guilt or innocence of the person accused of breaking those laws with what we see today with brothers chasing down their sisters with a butcher knife then this discussion is over anyway.

Ahh this explains why the bits about homosexuality are so studiously avoided, then, and why there's no huge issue regarding the Ten Commandments

Care to elaborate, Josie, or do we just have to guess what you mean. There is plenty of New Testament support for both of your 'examples' if thats what you were trying to say.

What's going on is that in the midst of a discussion Atom Bomb said ...

You were warned, and have brought this upon yourselves. Repent!

ONE’S-SELF I sing—a simple, separate Person;
Yet utter the word Democratic, the word En-masse.

Of Physiology from top to toe I sing;
Not physiognomy alone, nor brain alone, is worthy for the muse—I say the Form complete is worthier far;
The Female equally with the male I sing.

Of Life immense in passion, pulse, and power,
Cheerful—for freest action form’d, under the laws divine,
The Modern Man I sing.

(Note: if The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness is too hard, use tABoLK. Brother Atom Bomb of Peaceful Reconciliation and Sister Atom Bomb of Kindness to Strangers will not then feel so left out. So has the Shura voted {24-16, 3 abstentions}.)

What the hell are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?

I was talking about how we were discussing a simple matter of whether something was in the Bible or not and you turned it into people arrogantly justifying murder by claiming they were the Hand of God or something. Yikes.

The issue is whether the Bible sanctions honor killings in Deutoronomy. It seems clear to me that it in fact does.

Agreed. Thus my point.

Except nobody was arguing that we should perform honor killings if they're justified by a Bible verse. It's clear everyone here is against honor killings. So while I see your point, I don't think it was necessary as nobody was forming a mob to go stone non-virgins.

Nobody's murdering anyone and claiming they're the Hand of God.

If you use a book, say one that is explicitly endorsed by God, or one that is by "his only prophet," as an authority for murder, then you are implicitly making yourself a means of imposing policy.

Right. So thank goodness nobody's doing that here.

Pardon the poetic license. Oliver Stone does it all the time and noone from the right ever bitches.

Sure they do! All the time. (Was this attempted sarcasm?)

Atom and yourself suprised me by actually wanting to exchange ideas

Evidently I was only half right.

Brewfan,

I asked the question because its easy to say "The bible says it ok to kill people" and not having a clue as to context or content. Atom and yourself suprised me by actually wanting to exchange ideas instead of throwing out old tropes for the sole purpose of ripping believers.

Good, because I'm not ripping believers. In fact, I wasn't even really part of the original discussion, but I merely chimed in when you asked where the Bible condoned honor killings because I was familiar with that verse.

However, if you truly can't see the difference between a society having laws (whether you agree with them or not) and having a trial to determine guilt or innocence of the person accused of breaking those laws with what we see today with brothers chasing down their sisters with a butcher knife then this discussion is over anyway.

Too bad, because I really am interested in your answer as to what is different. Or is that your answer? That a trial in society deciding to do it makes it OK but in a street justice way it would be wrong?

Well, we are talking about Sharia law here, and quite often they do indeed have a formal trial, sentencing, and execution. If you search for some news stories you will find that this happens quite frequently in Islamic countries. Would you really consider those honor killings much more legitimate? Somehow I suspect not, so I am again curious as what is the difference between Deuteronomy and this. But you've taken your ball and gone home, so I guess I'll never know. Oh well, nice talking to you while it lasted.

Care to elaborate, Josie, or do we just have to guess what you mean. There is plenty of New Testament support for both of your 'examples' if thats what you were trying to say.
The references to the ilegality of homosexuality in the New Testament are generally, from the ones I've seen, simply refering to it as something already prohibited by the existing law (ie the Old Testament) and not newly or explicitly stated as part of the new covenant. Likewise, the ten commandments may be referenced in the NT, but they are no-where restated in a seperate form. The OT cannot be dropped, and what is interesting is which parts are dropped and which are kept. Largely it seems to be a matter of conveience, though a true believer may be able to clarify this somewhat.

And don't call me Josie.

1

AS I ponder’d in silence,
Returning upon my poems, considering, lingering long,
A Phantom arose before me, with distrustful aspect,
Terrible in beauty, age, and power,
The genius of poets of old lands,
As to me directing like flame its eyes,
With finger pointing to many immortal songs,
And menacing voice, What singest thou? it said;
Know’st thou not, there is but one theme for ever-enduring bards?
And that is the theme of War, the fortune of battles,
The making of perfect soldiers?

Believe me when I say, this hurts me as much as it hurts you. Repent, I beg of you.

No, seriously. This is actually painful.

grrr, that was me, if'n you didn't know.

So while I see your point, I don't think it was necessary as nobody was forming a mob to go stone non-virgins./i>

You know, I would let this go, but this is how ugly rumors get started.

I'm endorsing nothing of the sort, Fake Bob. Neither did I suggest that anyone on this thread was endorsing such a thing.

you turned it into people arrogantly justifying murder by claiming they were the Hand of God or something. Yikes.

Negative Ghostrider. In the future, discuss an example from the Bible that does not sanction murder and I won't use murder in my rejoinder, ok?

I could have used other crimes or misdemeanors, but I sense that you still would have been asking what the hell I was talking about.

I can see your point DeeDaGo, and so we will shift. If the US Constitution is primarily a production of Christianity, then those who wish to show that should do so with the Biblical verses that support a trile by jury, the seperation of powers, elections, a bi-cameral legislature, the freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and/or freedom from unreasonable search or siezure.

So what if many of the Founders were Christian? All of them wore woolen clothing. Should we argue that on that basis the Constitution is designed on the principles of raising sheep?

The references to the ilegality of homosexuality in the New Testament are generally, from the ones I've seen, simply refering to it as something already prohibited by the existing law (ie the Old Testament) and not newly or explicitly stated as part of the new covenant.

You're wrong, josie. Here's one example: 1 Cor 6:9.

Likewise, the ten commandments may be referenced in the NT, but they are no-where restated in a seperate form

You're wrong, josie. Here's one example:
Matt 22:36-40

The Enlightenment was a secular movement in a time of religious feeling, not the other way around.

It's more properly understood not necessarily as a strictly secular movement, but more of a separation of philosophy from the Catholic Church.

You only need to read enough of Voltaire, who was no friend of the priesthood, to understand that one can believe in God without listening to priests.

You can believe in God and still be intelligent, rational, and scientific. Newton and Einstein (though he was more of a pantheist) prove that, and I'm sure there are many more.

Viewing Thomas Jefferson through the prism of today's political public relations is invalid. Jefferson professed to believing in God in personal letters to friends, not just in government documents. While it's true that he held unorthodox beliefs (English Deism, more akin to Judaism than modern deism,) that doesn't make him an atheist, no matter what revisionists might tell you.

Adolfo earlier in the thread hit upon the difference between humans and animals, between sentient and non-sentient thought. Perfectability. No animal has demonstrated that it has an understanding of improving itself. Only we have. Indeed, some say that our spark of divinity is demonstrated by our knowing that we fall short of perfection, thus proving that we possess a dual existence - the beings we are and the beings we desire to become.

But I see that you haven't answered my question. Why is hurting or killing old ladies bad? If society and your parents early on told you it was acceptable, what wrong with it?

So what if many of the Founders were Christian? All of them wore woolen clothing. Should we argue that on that basis the Constitution is designed on the principles of raising sheep?

Ok, nice talking to you! I think your mom is calling you for supper.

I could have used other crimes or misdemeanors, but I sense that you still would have been asking what the hell I was talking about.

Right, because what we were talking about was merely whether something was in the Bible or not. Nobody was trying to justify anything by it. The question was simply if it was there.

tABoLK, et al.: then those who wish to show that should do so with the Biblical verses that support...

That's not necessarily valid. I mean, if you are going to demand a one-for-one correlation in the evolution of American Government back to the Bible then a) it cannot be done, and b) it was not done by the Founding Fathers.

But I think that's rather disingenuous. The Founding Fathers borrowed from many sources, and then came up with a lot of principles on their own. The Bill Of Rights was a pretty enlightened document, for example, not just because it's important, but because it's an admission that "we missed some stuff," and secondly, it's an example of the amendment process and function.

The argument that the American Government is based on judeo-Christian principles is not solely based on it coming from Judeo-Christian documents, but on the explicit attempt to pick and largely choose the most enlightened principles of government from philosophy, literature, and history that was decidedly western and decidedly Judeo-Christian.

Look, they borrowed heavily from Greek histories, philosophy, and literature as well. But they also realized that the Greek "experiment" did not work.

Thomas Jefferson wrote one of the first synoptic Gospels (the four books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in time-synchonized order).

I thought that was cool. I agree he was a Deist.

If the US Constitution is primarily a production of Christianity, then those who wish to show that should do so with the Biblical verses that support a trile by jury, the seperation of powers, elections, a bi-cameral legislature, the freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and/or freedom from unreasonable search or siezure.

No one's argued that the American government was founded strictly on Christian or Judaic principles. It's a product of Judeo-Christian values, mainly that the rights of the people come not from government, but from God. Government's role is only to protect those rights, not to bestow them.

It's silliness to confuse this with governmental structure.

Likewise, the ten commandments may be referenced in the NT, but they are no-where restated in a seperate form

You're wrong, josie. Here's one example:
Matt 22:36-40

That is hardly a restatement of the Ten Commandments, in the literal sense:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

You could say that is the essence of the Ten Commandments or that is summarizes their teachings or something along those lines, but I think if you hung up those quotations under the heading "The Ten Commandments" a lot of people would be puzzled.

oh, Brewfan, Romans 1:26-27 too.

Sue, Fisher Ames was the author of the First Amendment (as well as the Northwest Ordinance, which was the law by which territories could apply to become states, and required schools in the territory to teach from the Bible).

Ames was a congregationalist minister.

Sue: No one's argued that the American government was founded strictly on Christian or Judaic principles. It's a product of Judeo-Christian values, mainly that the rights of the people come not from government, but from God. Government's role is only to protect those rights, not to bestow them.

Exactly.

This is a revolutionary notion, and clearly one that people are still having problems with. It is one of amazing notions of Christianity, this respect for the individual. From a political sense, there is the notion that Government does not bestow those rights. And this opens up the door for the individuals to come to their own terms on where or what or whom, exactly, those rights came from.

Damned breathtaking.

Bob,

You're being a little nit-picky :)

Josie wanted a 10 commandment reference in the NT. I gave him one. Does it really matter if Jesus summarized them? Or are you saying they are not a summary of the Ten Commandments?

Thomas Jefferson wrote one of the first synoptic Gospels (the four books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in time-synchonized order).

Actually, the synoptic gospels are Mark, Matthew, and Luke, so named because they have many similarties. What you're describing is usually called a harmony, I believe. But that's not really what Jefferson did. He combed through the gospels and ripped out 1. everything that wasn't in agreement with the other gospels and 2. anything didn't ring true to him. I believe most (all?) of what he had left he drew from Luke.

Most traditional Christians are really not a fan of the so-called "Jefferson's Bible" because, among other reasons, he tore out anything miracles and basically reduced Jesus to a sage.

BrewFan,

I don't think I'm being nitpicking, as the point was that the OT isn't entirely thrown out by Christians since they place importance on the Ten Commandments which are only explicitly listed in the OT. Your NT quote is simply not an explicit list of the Ten Commandments.

Perhaps you missed the point that without the OT we wouldn't have the full list of the Ten Commandments. He was asking for a list in the NT, not simply a reference.

Bob, I didn't say I was a fan of it, and I agreed that Jefferson was a Deist (did not recognize the deity of Christ), so lighten up Francis.

And John does have similar events recorded with Matthew, Mark and Luke. John 6:6-13 if you feel the need...

This is a revolutionary notion, and clearly one that people are still having problems with. It is one of amazing notions of Christianity, this respect for the individual. From a political sense, there is the notion that Government does not bestow those rights. And this opens up the door for the individuals to come to their own terms on where or what or whom, exactly, those rights came from.

Damned breathtaking.

Where is this notion found in the Bible? (I am asking seriously, as I can't recall any such verses.)

BrewFan. I really don't know where you have gotten the idea that ad hominem attacks are some kind of debating technique that has any kind of, you know, actual usefulness. I can only suppose it has come from so long associating with whack-job lefties that some of their techniques are rubbing off on you. You may want to be aware of how churlish you end up sounding.

And I really don't get the 'josie' thing. I suppose it may provide you with some private amusement, but your private amusements aren't something that I am all that interested in. As for your verses (none of which support any of the things I suggested you should try to prove out of the Bible, by the way):

1 Cor 6:9 says: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 (continues): Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Now, this was Paul talking. Is Paul the ultimate source for what is legal or not? I don't think that according to any Christian doctrine that he is. In fact, isn't his justification for the 'unrighteousness' of all of those listed taken from the OT?

As for Matt 22:36-40, that gets you 2 out of the 10, and even then it can be seen as simply referring back to the others.

Your further ad hominem attacks will not distract me or anyone else who is following this thread from the challenge that you cannot meet: back up the claim of the primacy of Christianity as a source for the Constitution from the Bible. This you cannot do. Instead, you can call names and mock. Inaccurately, ineptly, and childishly it should be noted.

Sue, your points are noted, and I am not necessarily discussing the spiritual side of the Enlightenment, but I think that it is a mistake to confuse a broad movement for any specific trends regarding secularism vs the various spirtual forms that it also engendered. The point is, even within its more spiritual aspects, it still retained a dinstinction between reason and faith, generally giving primacy to reason. This was distinct from other forms of spirituality that generally prefered (and yet prefer) faith to any earthly manifestations.

It's as if someone were saying a lump of iron is what makes a car go. That is, of course, silly. To be sure, there is iron in the block of an engine, but it has been processed and transformed by many different processes so that it is no longer just that original lump of iron. Also, along the way, a whole lot of other things were added as well. It is silly to say that the iron has nothing to do with the engine, since it is obviously there, but equally silly to say that the iron is the only important and most significant bit.

Dave, I didn't say you were a fan of it. I was just throwing some more information onto the pile. I'm as light as air.

By the way, I didn't say John didn't have similar events (all the gospels have the crucifixion and ressurrection), but it's not considered one of the synoptic gospels.

Bob,

It is not found in the Bible in a verse. It's thematic through the New Testament, usually implicitly in the Gospels, more explicitly in Corinthians and Romans.

Perhaps you missed the point that without the OT we wouldn't have the full list of the Ten Commandments.

And what is the relevance of that point to the discussion at hand? I'm just asking because outside of your belief the bible teaches honor killings are ok you've really lost me.

fine Bob. My point was that Jefferson's version contained verses from the Gospel of John. Specifically Jesus driving the money lenders out of the temple, the parable of the Good Shepherd, Judas’s betrayal of Christ, the trial of Jesus before the high priest, and Peter's denial of his Master.

You're correct that the historical connotation of "synoptic" Gospels does not include John. I'm correct that in this context, harmony and synoptic are synonyms.

back up the claim of the primacy of Christianity as a source for the Constitution from the Bible

Show me where I said that.

Paul is an apostle and more importantly, an inspired writer. So yes, what he says is the same as God saying it.

As regards ad hominem attacks all I can say is butch up a little. Sheesh.

And what is the relevance of that point to the discussion at hand? I'm just asking because outside of your belief the bible teaches honor killings are ok you've really lost me.

Scroll up and all shall be revealed.
Pay attention to the posts by BrewFan.

And because I didn't put my name on the last comment you can call me Josie too :)

Scroll up and all shall be revealed.
Pay attention to the posts by BrewFan

So, in other words, you have no clue. I suspected as much.

DeeDaGo:

It is not found in the Bible in a verse. It's thematic through the New Testament, usually implicitly in the Gospels, more explicitly in Corinthians and Romans.

Really? I think a more consistent theme is the opposite: Render unto Caesar, slaves obey your masters, etc., etc.

Dave:

fine Bob. My point was that Jefferson's version contained verses from the Gospel of John. Specifically Jesus driving the money lenders out of the temple, the parable of the Good Shepherd, Judas’s betrayal of Christ, the trial of Jesus before the high priest, and Peter's denial of his Master.

I misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies.

back up the claim of the primacy of Christianity as a source for the Constitution from the Bible

So I'm pretty unclear who if anybody REALLY said this on this thread. It might all be a hoax.

The question to ask, then, is whether Islam or Hinduism or any other world religion could seriously have yielded the Constitution. Given the historical evidence, the philosophical evidence, and the political evidence, the answer is a pretty clear no.

And, no Bob, it's not in the Bible, if by "in the Bible" you mean a chapter, verse, story, or prophesy.

BrewFan:

Perhaps you missed the point that without the OT we wouldn't have the full list of the Ten Commandments.

And what is the relevance of that point to the discussion at hand? I'm just asking because outside of your belief the bible teaches honor killings are ok you've really lost me.

I don't know how you don't understand, but OK, here we go:

1. The claim was made that the OT isn't necessarily relevant to Christians.

2. tABoLK said, and I quote, the "ten commandments may be referenced in the NT, but they are no-where restated in a seperate form. The OT cannot be dropped, and what is interesting is which parts are dropped and which are kept."

3. So at this point, I thought with your verse cites you were rising to the challenge to prove that, in fact, "the Ten Commandments are restated in a separate form" in the NT.

4. When your verse cites did no such thing, I pointed it out.

I don't see the source of your confusion, unless you misunderstood or misremembered tABoLK's claim that you were (I thought) responding to. Or maybe I'm somehow confused. In that case, feel free to enlighten me.

I think a more consistent theme is the opposite: Render unto Caesar, slaves obey your masters, etc., etc.

I suppose.

Except for that whole New Testament theme thing. What with Paul and Peter and all those folks saying, essentially, "throw off the yolk, forget the political climate, follow the Lord, your God, at the expense of all else."

And, oh yeah, Jesus said some of that stuff too. You know, he really just gave in to the Jewish theocratic establishment and the Roman endorsement of it.

All crazy talk, I suppose. But really, I can't argue with you.

As regards ad hominem attacks all I can say is butch up a little. Sheesh.

It doesn't bother me, except that I am less likely to want to continue to debate with someone who has no ammunition outside of childish ad hominems.
Now, witty and truly original ad hominems can be amusing, so knock yourself out. Just put some effort into it, at least.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to understand the origins of the Constitution without understanding the Enlightenment or English Common Law. Those are the sine qua non prerequisites for the Constitution. However, Christianity is not a prerequisite in the same way. There was Christianity in France, but their Constitution collapsed into a tyranny in the blink of an eye. There was Christianity in Germany, where there was no Constitution for another hundred years, and it was no picnic when it arrived on the advancing bayonets of Prussian troops.
To be sure, there was a primary role of Christianity in the development and course of the Enlightenment. That is beyond dispute. However, in the course of that development, the existing Christian institutions and dogmas were more often the foil against which the Enlightenment played than not.
The role of Christianity in history is not denied. The importance of that role is not denied. However, the primacy of that role in the development of the US Constitution can be easily denied. This cannot be done with either English Common Law or the principles that developed outside of Christianity -- as well as within -- during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was not simply a pure outgrowth of Christian philosophies, though it was certainly very influencial; but also a continuation of various classical pre-Christian philosophies. Just as the Common Law was in many ways a melding of Germanic pre-Christian and post-Christian influences.

I think a more consistent theme is the opposite: Render unto Caesar, slaves obey your masters, etc., etc.

I suppose.

Except for that whole New Testament theme thing. What with Paul and Peter and all those folks saying, essentially, "throw off the yolk, forget the political climate, follow the Lord, your God, at the expense of all else."

And, oh yeah, Jesus said some of that stuff too. You know, he really just gave in to the Jewish theocratic establishment and the Roman endorsement of it.

All crazy talk, I suppose. If somehow you take "Render unto ..." as an explicit endorsement of whatever regime there is in power, then by all means, endorse away.

"Where is this notion found in the Bible?"

It emanates from the penumbras of other Biblical clauses.

Heh.

"Where is this notion found in the Bible?"

It emanates from the penumbras of other Biblical clauses.

Looks like we found Souter's replacement. Quick, call Rove!

I think a more consistent theme is the opposite: Render unto Caesar, slaves obey your masters, etc., etc.

I suppose.

Except for that whole New Testament theme thing. What with Paul and Peter and all those folks saying, essentially, "throw off the yolk, forget the political climate, follow the Lord, your God, at the expense of all else."

And, oh yeah, Jesus said some of that stuff too. You know, he really just gave in to the Jewish theocratic establishment and the Roman endorsement of it.

All crazy talk, I suppose. If somehow you take "Render unto ..." as an explicit endorsement of whatever regime there is in power, then by all means, endorse away.

You're talking about a vague theme about being free in Christ. I'm talking about an explicit them about obeying the authorities:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (Romans 13:1)

There is no authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him. (Romans 13:1b)

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:2)

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. (Romans 13:3)

For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of justice to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:4)

If the NT is just loaded with the "theme" that we as individuals have God-given rights and that God's rights do not flow from a God-ordained leader, then, well, we have a big contradiction with the verses I've cited from Romans, don't we?

The notion the rights come from God was an Enlightment idea. It did not flow from conventional Christianity (or really from Christianity at all).

The claim was made that the OT isn't necessarily relevant to Christians.

You must be confused because nobody said that. What has been stated is that according to Christian doctrine people can not be saved by obeying the law as given in the OT; salvation is by grace through faith. There is much wisdom in the OT that can be used in day to day life; the 10 Commandments being an example of that.

What retarded DU/Atrios reject designed this comment system?

Grar!

Atom: ...English Common Law. Those are the sine qua non prerequisites for the Constitution.

Yup. And English Common Law is pretty explicitly founded in a Judeo Christian Tradition. That is not to say that this wasn't a process - it was. The Magna Carta both protects the Church from government while at the same time claiming the authority of God as the motivation and source of authority. But this duality is pretty important - it ultimately leads to a stable parliamentary system that acknowledges God as the ultimate authority of the monarchy and the people as the authority for Commons (in a few hundred years).

But it is the "Christian" part of this tradition that acknowledges a universal authority that is above and beyond any temporal or worldy authority(Bob - that's God), and thus relegates politics to the political sphere.

The notion of religious freedom as being separated in fact from a particular political doctrine is certainly not Islamic, for which the political was merely an extension of the religious (and for which the military was merely an extension of the religious). Nor is it Hindu, or Zen, or Buddhist, nor Confucian.

It is Judeo-Christian.

You're talking about a vague theme about being free in Christ.

No, I am not.

Bob, I will not debate you any more on this topic. It is boring and tedious.

The claim was made that the OT isn't necessarily relevant to Christians.

You must be confused because nobody said that. What has been stated is that according to Christian doctrine people can not be saved by obeying the law as given in the OT; salvation is by grace through faith. There is much wisdom in the OT that can be used in day to day life; the 10 Commandments being an example of that.

Well there was some confusion because someone had previously said:
Be that as it may, I'm happy to say that since about 2000 years ago, we no longer have to be bound by the law of the Old Testament (see the book of Romans for details :) ).

Now, would it be fair to say that your meaning is that while the law is no longer binding, the principles behind the law are still applicable?

Yup. And English Common Law is pretty explicitly founded in a Judeo Christian Tradition.

Actually, no, it was not founded in a Judeo-Christian tradition, it was founded in a pagan Anglo-Saxon tradition. It was further developed and refined in a Judeo-Christian tradition, but the trial by jury, parlement, and other aspects of that law were established before Christianity arrived. All of the major legal systems in medieval Europe were the same: all were adaptations of existing pagan or Roman traditions which were further refined as events would warrant.
The seperation of church and state that you later refer to is a unique aspect of Western European development. The Church sought primacy, and there were several papal edicts and efforts towards that goal (Unam Sanctam, anyone?), however none ever really took root. In the Eastern Christian Churches there was no seperation of Church and State, so what applies to the Muslims applies just as much to them. It was in the West, with its precipitous fall into barbarism, where the State was able to develop in a way less connected to the Church, and thus lead to the distinction between Church and State that only the West could generate.

What retarded DU/Atrios reject designed this comment system?

It got me .... in mid-edit.

The claim was made that the OT isn't necessarily relevant to Christians.

You must be confused because nobody said that. What has been stated is that according to Christian doctrine people can not be saved by obeying the law as given in the OT; salvation is by grace through faith. There is much wisdom in the OT that can be used in day to day life; the 10 Commandments being an example of that.

You earlier wrote this:

I'm happy to say that since about 2000 years ago, we no longer have to be bound by the law of the Old Testament (see the book of Romans for details :) ).

I guess this is where we quibble over the word "relevant". Well, forget it. You have worn me out, you win that one.

Regardless, in response, whether or not he "interpreted" you correctly or not, tABoLK challenged you to show where in the NT the Ten Commandments were explicitly laid out rather than just referenced. Your responded with a bunch of NT cites that just referenced them. But then I guess you were actually responding to something other that tABoLK's challenge or something. Who knows. I'm not going to get an answer out of you any more than I did on how Deuteronomy's death sentences for rape victims differs substantially from one handed down by a sharia court, and pressing for an answer to either one makes me anti-Christian or something.

Whatever.

And we're also never going to get Ace's review of the movie either.

Knemon says: Any monotheist who also associates that god/"Bob"/Flying Spaghetti Monster with goodness, believes in a "huge grownup in the sky." Okay. Well any libertarian believes in a Romantic atomic brooding Byronic individual cast against the harsh chains of law and custom. That's just as lame.

It sure is. If I believed in either of those things, I'd be so embarrassed. As I don't, I can snark with a clear conscience. You seem to be entirely distracted by tone. This feels so like discussing South Park with a Freeper (except that I'm not funny).

Sue says: But I see that you haven't answered my question. Why is hurting or killing old ladies bad? If society and your parents early on told you it was acceptable, what wrong with it?

If you can accept "I think therefore I am" as the basic building block of consciousness, then "as it is for me, so it must be for others" is the basic building block of our obligations to one another, or (from the other angle) our rights. "Do unto others" is the way we're most accustomed to hearing that, but of course it's an ancient idea. As is the great body of thought about morality in the absence of a specific religious framework. Which is why I didn't bother answering it; I was surprised it to find it necessary.

The rest of the thread has grown to the length of a homework assignment, so I'll pass. I'm sure we'll all meet again over the same arguments some day soon.

You're talking about a vague theme about being free in Christ.

No, I am not.

I cited the actual Bible verses that strongly contradict this alleged theme. You cited nothing.

Bob, I will not debate you any more on this topic. It is boring and tedious.

Cool. As the kids today say: OWNED.

abolk,

To a Christian the law has no bearing on salvation. I wasn't clear on that and if that caused you confusion I apologize. Don't put the entire OT in the category of 'law', however. The OT not only contains the law, it also has prophetical, poetical, and historical writings. It contains much wisdom and teaches principles that are as valid today as they were when they were written (see Psalms, Proverbs, etc.).

(the last one was me as well)

But it is the "Christian" part of this tradition that acknowledges a universal authority that is above and beyond any temporal or worldy authority(Bob - that's God), and thus relegates politics to the political sphere.

The notion of religious freedom as being separated in fact from a particular political doctrine is certainly not Islamic, for which the political was merely an extension of the religious (and for which the military was merely an extension of the religious). Nor is it Hindu, or Zen, or Buddhist, nor Confucian.

It is Judeo-Christian.

It's more Deist/Enlightenment, actually...

The separation of Church and State idea is not Christian. The concept of individual rights not subject to earthly rulers goes against much of the NT (which says either rulers are of God or they are not but should be obeyed because the afterlife is what matters, not the current life).

But I am certainly not denying that the Founders believed in rights granted by God. That was clearly the case. It just wasn't a mainstream Christian concept of God.

And, finally, again I want to state that I am not anti-Christian in any way. Saying X is in the Bible when it actually is in the Bible does not make one anti-Christian or anti-Bible. It merely makes one in agreement with the facts.

(the last one was me as well)

That was referring to the snarky "OWNED" post I wrote. BrewFan snuck in one between.

"It's more Deist/Enlightenment, actually..."

Yes. Phylum: Judeo-Christian (sprinkle with Hellenism to taste). Class: Deist/Enlightenment.

Or did I miss the Deist/Enlightenment outgrowths of Islam, Zen, Shintoism et al.?

I WANT COCO'S REVIEW, DAMMIT

" It just wasn't a mainstream Christian concept of God."

For the pointiest-headed of the Founders' generation, sure.

For the thousands of unremembered men who got 'er done, naw.

Religion is lived from the bottom up, theorized from the top down.

Since nobody has answered this, I thought I would:

Why is it not OK to murder old ladies?

Almost every society, Christian and non-Christian, ancient and modern, has had general laws against murder. Any society that condoned wanton murder would, of course, soon cease to exist. So usually murder is outlawed, and then some exceptions are carved out (for war, for punishment in extreme circumstances, etc.). "Being an old lady" is generally not one of the exceptions.

Why would I not murder an old lady, regardless of the laws? Because I don't want to be murdered, and I don't want anyone I care about to be murdered, so I am happy to enter into an agreement with my fellow citizens that we don't murder each other.

I find it kind of surprising that those defending Christianity would use this as an argument. Do you really want to say most Christians would go on an old-lady-murdering binge if not held in check by Christianity? I don't think you do.

Is that a far-fetched example? Maybe. But when my wife was in high school she had a swim coach that was very Christian and talked about it openly, which was fine. But one day he started going on and on about how Christianity made him a good person and without it he'd probably go around murdering and raping people. He then looked at all the shocked expressions among the members of his female swim team (ie, apparently potential rape victims), realized how stupid it had been to say that, and quickly began backpedaling. And, you know what? He was a good person, and I don't think he would have been a murderer/rapist without Christianity. I'm not saying Christianity doesn't have a lot of good to offer, but I don't subscribe to the notion that we'd all turn into monsters without it.

It was further developed and refined in a Judeo-Christian tradition, but the trial by jury, parlement, and other aspects of that law were established before Christianity arrived.

Certainly not parliament. Parliament as we know it was not really created until the 1500's and 1600's, largely in response to a protestant response to first the Catholic and then the COE's influence in government. I think, but am not sure, that a fully functional two house parliament with some separation of powers did not really come into being until after the rule of Cromwell.

Trial by jury is certainly an older principle, or at least the notion of a trial by peers. I know that it existed in rigorous form in pre-Hellenic Greece. I think that it is a stretch to say that it had a basis in pagan societies, at least in a tracable form. Most pagan societies that helped form the Western tradition were influenced to a large extent by Roman law and customs, and even where there was an attempt to make a break from Roman Law, there was still the influence.

Maybe the common ground that we are looking for is to say that it is a Western document, with some mix of Judeo Christian principles, Roman Law, Greek Law, and English Law. You could probably name more. But even in saying the Constitution is a Western document, you have to acknowledge the profound influence of Judeo-Christian thought, laws, and a profound moral tradition. It's pretty clear (to me anyway) that you are talking about a unique combination of factors - a religion that did not demand political dominance, and political climate that could acknowledge a higher power than state aothority or strength. Ultimately, the notion of a codified set of laws (10 Commandments) which were generated from this higher, non-politically motivated authority is unique as far as I know.

I hold that this is a profound concept that has har reaching implications.

The seperation of church and state that you later refer to is a unique aspect of Western European development.

Agreed. I guess I would have to say that to be a political power that acknowledges a higher religious authority while still claiming political legitimacy is completely a function of a Judeo-Christian influenced theocracy that could conceive of a religious-sphere of influence that did not need a political or military component to either exist or to thrive.

This notion was certainly central in England, but also even in the Catholic France of Louis XIV. There was never an attempt to overtly consume the Catholic Church by Louis' France (even with the purportedly puppet Popes, etc.). They were kept separate, and operated in separate realms (with A LOT of overlap, admittedly).

By the time the notion gets to the US, you have a political structure that claims legitimacy from the people, but which recognizes, usually implicitly, fealty to and recognition of God. Again, looked at historically, this is a direct result of hundreds of years of Christian theocracies that sought its ends through extra-political means.

Cool. As the kids today say: OWNED.

Yeah, Bob. Owned.

(a)

"I find it kind of surprising that those defending Christianity would use this as an argument. "

Are we? I saw it introduced to the thread in this context (paraphrased):

"Why do lame Christians need a grownup in the sky to tell them it's wrong to murder old ladies?"

If it came in earlier than that ... never mind.

(b)

DeeDaGo, the English Civil War *was* Parliament asserting and creating itself as a force. And Palriament was ... intensely, intensely religious in its discourse and its self-consciousness.

The separation of Church and State idea is not Christian

What are you talking about? This is precisely why Jesus said 'Render unto Ceaser...', etc.

Also, the passage you cite above in Romans has to do with whether a secular government has authority over a believer. The answer is they do, but that is in no way an endorsement of your idea that it can't be found in the scriptures that man is granted an inalienable right of freedom. The fact that God made man in His own image should be proof enough that freedom is indeed an inalienable right.

the English Civil War *was* Parliament asserting and creating itself as a force.

Yes, and if I remember correctly, there was still a bit of back and forth going on to see where the cabinet posts would share power with, say, Commons. One historian that I read said that the modern parliament really wasn't in place until after the first Hanoerian king.

But the bi-cameral parliament came to be a lot earlier than that, and there were several hundreds of years of Commons trying to establish its place.

And Palriament was ... intensely, intensely religious in its discourse and its self-consciousness.

Yes, it was. I have been doing some reading about this period, which started with Stephenson's Baroque Cycle. It was amazing the ties between commerce, protestantism, and the politics of the time. They were very tied together, and led very directly to the founding of the colonies.

What are you talking about? This is precisely why Jesus said 'Render unto Ceaser...', etc.

Bingo.

It's two separate things that have implications per freedom of religion as well as political structure.

I'm telling you, it's damned revolutionary that a government can co-exist with a god, especially God. And yet here we are.

DeeDaGo, I agree that the modern Parlement is a recent development, but the roots of the modern parlement have more to do with the Germanic Thing (still the name of the parlement in Iceland) than with the Roman Senate. Though both are, ultimately, pagan in origin. The whole concept of a legislature is extra-Biblical, yet is one of the keystones of any liberal (that's in the classic liberal sense, not the modern bone-headed liberal sense) democracy.
The point is, that while Christianity was part of the mix, the presence of Christianity alone was not enough to generate either the Enlightenment or the modern democratic movement. And again I would hold up as a counter example the experiences of the Eastern Churches as a counter example to the Western ones. They had the same Christian influences (or similar ones) that did not end up with anything near the same results. If you start qualifying which kinds of Christianity were most condusive towards liberal values, you start getting into a chicken and egg pissing contest, where it isn't clear if the people's character determined the forms of the faith, or if the faith informed the people's character.
And that's a pissing contest for a different thread.

Hopefully it'll be a thread about breasts. We haven't discussed breasts yet, and I think there are significant correlations between breast availability and the degree a populous would support market liberalization.

If you start qualifying which kinds of Christianity were most condusive towards liberal values, you start getting into a chicken and egg pissing contest

Atom, precisely. That is why I've tried to keep Biblical evidence out of this. Every passage is too open to interpretation. Less so the themes.

The point is, that while Christianity was part of the mix, the presence of Christianity alone was not enough

No argument. We are in violent agreement.

The whole concept of a legislature is extra-Biblical, yet is one of the keystones of any liberal democracy.

Absolutely. Thus my point about Western culture and civilization.

Look at it this way, though. Forget Christianity qua religion, but rather as political force with all that that implies. Christianity has existed and motivated Western political structures for 2000 years.

Without ever supplanting those political forces.

Germanic Thing

That thing you do ....

OK. I'll happily concede the point.

But I will continue to hold that while the Judeo-Christian of its own may not be sufficient to create the modern Democratic Republic of America, it was necessary. It is a source of legitimacy and historical precedent that is essential to our daily discourse. Even this conversation, in some ways, has its traditions in the pubs and saloons of a decidedly Christian West.

That's part of what has motivated me in this thread - not enough is made of this, and people are too willing to throw Christianity out with the bathwater in a fit of modern liberalism or libertarianism or multicultural purity (heh). Classical liberals, I think, would hold that it is essential. Trying to erase it from our collective culture is a poor use of time.

Hopefully it'll be a thread about breasts.

Classically liberal breasts, please.

So what if many of the Founders were Christian?

Okay, so what. Let's step into The Way-Back Machine and replace the Founders with:

Christopher Hitchens
David Corn
Andrew Sullivan
Ayn Rand
Neville Chamberlain

Would America be different today?

But I will continue to hold that while the Judeo-Christian of its own may not be sufficient to create the modern Democratic Republic of America, it was necessary. It is a source of legitimacy and historical precedent that is essential to our daily discourse. Even this conversation, in some ways, has its traditions in the pubs and saloons of a decidedly Christian West.

That's part of what has motivated me in this thread - not enough is made of this, and people are too willing to throw Christianity out with the bathwater in a fit of modern liberalism or libertarianism or multicultural purity (heh). Classical liberals, I think, would hold that it is essential. Trying to erase it from our collective culture is a poor use of time.

Fair enough, and please note, I've never said Christianity had NO role, but rather there were other roles from outside of the strictly Judeo-Christian aspect of things that had a greater influence over the Constitution. Never, ever, ever.

Classically liberal breasts, please.
I'm going to have to go with the pagan Anglo-Germanic ginormous boobies. Although the celto-iberian ta-ta's are quite nice, as well. Though, obviously, not in keeping with the traditional enlightenment female pectoral adornments.

I know that it existed in rigorous form in pre-Hellenic Greece. I think that it is a stretch to say that it had a basis in pagan societies,

I am an idiot. Of course, pre-Hellenic Greece is pagan. I just don't think of it that way.

Mainly because of the togas.

Okay, so what. Let's step into The Way-Back Machine and replace the Founders with:
Christopher Hitchens
David Corn
Andrew Sullivan
Ayn Rand
Neville Chamberlain
Would America be different today?
I have avoided 'what ifs' because they don't add anything, and say more about the person doing the postulation than about what is being postulated about.
I believe that at least two, if not three, of those listed are, nominally at least, Christian anyhow. Also, none of them would have achieved any thing if there had not already been an America in the first place. So the question is, at its root, a non-sequitor.
Here's a 'what if,' if you want to insist on one:
What if Constatine had made Mithraism the state religion instead of Christianity.

Though I suspect that only Bob and DeeDaGo would actually think that this would be all that interesting to think about.
And, no, I don't think it would be like that goofy Star Trek where Kirk has to fight like a gladiator for some 'modern' 60's Romans-a-go-go.

Kirk was no viking, that's for damn sure.

Kirk was no viking, that's for damn sure.

Yeah, but he is LIKE a viking, and that's more important.

You missed the point.
The point was that modern-day liberals, libertarians, atheists, and so-called Catholics (i.e. Andrew Sullivan and Ted Kennedy) could never form the beginnings of a hugely succesful, prosperous, powerful country -- let alone sustain an existing one.

Yet these people are the first to offer criticism, scorn, and condescension while having the audacity to think they can do better.

while having the audacity to think they can do better.

I don't think that is a given. It is considered a badge of honor in the chattering classes to come up with new and better ways to rip the establishment. There is not a real plan to make anything better. Just to bitch.

Which is, I think, part of what is motivating people to slam Christianity qua Christmas, 10 Commandments, etc. As Atom said, this should really get on another thread so that we can piss off a more focused group of people.

Yeah, but he is LIKE a viking, and that's more important.

Oh, piffle. Let us consult with the references, shall we?

Alcuin of York: “The calamity of your tribulation saddens me greatly every day . . . when the pagans desecrated the sanctuaries of God, and poured out the blood of saints around the altar, laid waste the house of our hope, trampled on the bodies of saints in the temple of God, like dung in the street. What can we say except lament in our soul with you . . .”

Now. That hardly sounds like an away mission, now does it? Especially considering the fact that the anonymous guy in a red shirt is more likely than not to be trampled upon than to be doing any trampling.

Kirk: not even LIKE a viking.
Picard was almost like a viking, but only if vikings could be French, which they could not be since effeminacy and ball-less-ness was not a valued trait among vikings, and so not him either.
Sisko was as unviking as it was possible to be. Vikings would have plundered Bajor silly, and taken that Bajoran chick to Iceland to breed future Miss Worlds.
Janeway was like an English wannabe viking who was shipped out on a broken skiff to conquer the penguins -- and failed.
And that other guy should have stayed in that Quantum Leap thing where he didn't look quite as stupid in a completely non-viking way.

There are no vikings in the Star Trek universe. Which is a pity.

So while we're at it ...

There are no vikings in the Star Trek universe. Which is a pity.

Would you say, then, that Darth Maul is a viking? Is Luke at least like a viking?

This is important, because, a) the entire fate of the free universe hangs in the balance, and b) we may finally have the ability to solve the whole wars v trek debate.

If Maul had stabbed Qui Gon in the gut and then screwed the hole he had just made, THEN he'd be a viking. Since he didn't, he's just a Roman mercenary.

Luke is, by this measure, a pleasure toy for the Greek gladitorial slaves.

The closest thing to a viking in the Star Wars universe was Jabba the Hutt, and if he got on a longship it'd sink. So he's out, too.

"What if Constatine had made Mithraism the state religion instead of Christianity."

Weeeellll, in a sense, he kinda did. Not "instead of," more of a merger.

Mithraism continued to be big in the army (sort of Constantine's peeps), and only gradually disappeared - got co-opted by? - Christianity.

While the first few generations of Christians in power went on a festival-banning, statue-defacing, book-burning spree ... Mithraism sort of got a pass.

The only way you could really turn Christianity into state cult was to butch it up a little. Mithraism would have definitely helped with that. Also Mithraism was sort of an elite officer's club thing ... surely the same social networks would have transferred over into the new, Christianified Powers that Be. We have several examples of Mithraic meeting halls directly converted into (elite) churches ... which is a pretty big betrayal of the original Pauline model. In Paul's letters, it's far from clear that we're even supposed to be building separate worship buildings, rather than just using people's homes to meet.

Then there's the whole Mithras-born-on-Dec.25th thing ...

Even Hercules sort of prefigures Christ. Even Oedipus, in a bizarre way. The theme of a community-redeeming, self-sacrificing superhero is Greek at least as much as Judeo-Christian.

*

I don't think anyone here is claiming Christianity played either the ONLY role, or an INSIGNIFICANT role, in the Founding, the Enlightenment itself, modern democracy, all that good stuff. (Even a reaction against Xianity is itself inconceivable without that originial Christian ground to react against, of course).

The rest is just a matter of degree. The fact remains that it's one of the ingredients in the recipie - you can try to substitute something else; huge swathes of Asia seem well on their way to completely incorporating some recognizable version of the democratic thing. Certain other neighborhoods, not so much. Draw what conclusions you will.

There's a relevant Chesterton quote in "Heretics." I can't remember exactly how he put it, but this is the gist: When people say they want to get back to the Classical or Pagan or Rationalist, pre-Christian way of thinking about the world, paradoxically they will only truly be able to do this by a re-immersion in Christian thought itself.

Why? Because Christianity, being the oldest surviving thought-thing around, is the only thing we have that itself in its youth shook hands with antiquity. The Enlightenment and modernity are not pagan, paganism was gone long before they were born. The only (partially) pagan thing left in the world today, is Christianity itself.

Fun With Paradox!

Are the Borg too disciplined to be Viking-like? Because other than that, the MO is the same.

Borg are termites. Vikings eat termites -- but not on purpose. When they eat enitre villages whole, they end up with more than a few termite infested cottages.
However, this proves that Borg aren't vikings.

Mithraism ... only gradually disappeared - got co-opted by? - Christianity.

This is true of a LOT of orders / religions /etc. And Christianity melded surprisingly well with other schools of thought. Gnostics, Essenes, and Coptics were all off-shoots of mainline Christianity, and each had their roots in a pre-Christian group or sect. Or study Christianity and its move through Africa, esp. in Ethiopia, and you see that, for whatever reason, there were clearly something compelling enough to push a significant portion of the population to Christianity.

You can see the influence even in the Gospels, and if you read the Apocrypha, the different sects become even more pronounced.

There's a relevant Chesterton quote in "Heretics."

That is really, really insightful. It's on my reading list.

huge swathes of Asia seem well on their way to completely incorporating some recognizable version of the democratic thing.

It's unclear to me whether democracy will take hold and whether there will be a significant cultural consequence. A little interesting reading here is Hanson's "Carnage and Culture" and ?'s "Why Capitalism works in the West." Both of these books make the point that the successes of the West have been for many reasons that are often overlooked which are fundamental cultural elements. The Greek phalanx was composed of freemen because it was brutally effective, but it was also effective because it was free.

Is there a corollary in Hong Kong, for example. Well, I think that there is an attempt to get there - more and more people are developing a stake in their future and in the island.

It really comes down to whether they will placate or not. Time will tell. Time will tell.

I don't want to stir the shit pot, but homosexuality caused the collapse of the Jedi.

Big ugly reply to everyone (and hopefully everyone else is gone so I can have the last word):

DeeDaGo wrote:

Cool. As the kids today say: OWNED.

Yeah, Bob. Owned.

Hey, it was just a joke. I had to say something after you accused me of boring you to death or all the Ace readers wouldn't think I wasn't cool anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

(a)

"I find it kind of surprising that those defending Christianity would use this as an argument. "

Are we? I saw it introduced to the thread in this context (paraphrased):

"Why do lame Christians need a grownup in the sky to tell them it's wrong to murder old ladies?"

If it came in earlier than that ... never mind.

Yes, that's the earliest mention, and at that point it was rhetorical, but then Sue Dohnim started challenging people to explain why without Christianity it was not OK to kill old ladies.

Brewfan wrote:

The separation of Church and State idea is not Christian

What are you talking about? This is precisely why Jesus said 'Render unto Ceaser...', etc.

Also, the passage you cite above in Romans has to do with whether a secular government has authority over a believer. The answer is they do, but that is in no way an endorsement of your idea that it can't be found in the scriptures that man is granted an inalienable right of freedom. The fact that God made man in His own image should be proof enough that freedom is indeed an inalienable right.

The Caesar quote was more an issue of living with a non-Jewish government than it was advocating a separate Church and state. I think you're reading it through a modern prism if you believe Jesus was advocating a secular government with that quote.

I don't think it is as clear as you think that freedom is an inalienable right since many passages in the Bible assume a contrary position. The passages in Romans, written by someone that knew full well that man was made in God's image, are certainly not simply about a secular government have authority over a believer. Come on:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (Romans 13:1)

That's saying a little more than "Christians should tolerate secular authority".

Also, if this idea were obvious, why did it take a couple thousand years for anyone to notice it? There were many very Christian countries during that time period, and they, on the authority of the Bible, felt monarchies were the way to go, and they could point to a host of passages to back them up (such as the Romans one above).

DeeDaGo wrote:

Atom, precisely. That is why I've tried to keep Biblical evidence out of this. Every passage is too open to interpretation. Less so the themes.

Thanks for the laugh -- that's hilarious. Yes, vague themes are much less open to interpretation than specific passages. And I totally believe that's why you intentionally chose to limit your use of Biblical evidence.

The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness wrote:

What if Constatine had made Mithraism the state religion instead of Christianity.

Though I suspect that only Bob and DeeDaGo would actually think that this would be all that interesting to think about.

As similar as Mithraism was to Christianity, if that were the dominant religion at the time of American's founding, I don't see it having much impact. The concepts of strict separation of church and state and of the rights of individuals, etc., did not come from the Christian bible as evidenced by the fact that Christian society after Christian society for almost two thousand years failed to discover this in the Bible.

Knemon wrote:

I don't think anyone here is claiming Christianity played either the ONLY role, or an INSIGNIFICANT role, in the Founding, the Enlightenment itself, modern democracy, all that good stuff. (Even a reaction against Xianity is itself inconceivable without that originial Christian ground to react against, of course).

Hmmm...well, I think I kind of am. I think it was pretty insignificant. The Founders had Enlightment philosphy ideas about rights flowing from God to individual men, and that neither came from Christianity nor was a reaction against it. Although I do think the concept of separation of Church and State was a reaction against Christianity, or at least some of its more oppressive forms.

I really think a lot of the issue here comes from the misconception many people have that most of the key founding fathers were Christians in the traditional sense of the word. For the most part they weren't. They were Deists or believers in the so-called "God of Philosophy", who is very different from the God in the Bible. Many of them didn't believe Jesus was God on earth or that he rose from the dead, etc. Their ideas on God were from abstract religious philosophy rather than from anything they read in the Bible.

Well, I'm out of time. I've enjoyed the discussion and hopefully nobody's too offended. Later.

Too bad, you don't get the last word.

I do.

And as for the influence that Christianity may or may not have had on the Constitution, I have only this to say:

Kirk was no fucking viking.

Have nice lives, and enjoy.

Most of us seem to have pretty thick skins. It'd take "Buzz Bunny" talking about shit-ass cuntjuicing razor-dildos to raise even an eyebrown on most of our digital foreheads.

Dammit, I want the last goddam word in this thread, and I'll line all your forheads with Atomic Loving Kindness Fallout, if'n you follow my meaning.

But Like a Viking.

;)

Interesting discussion. Made me stay up too late. Glad I'm living in Scandinavia and not freakin' America. Merry Yule on all of you!

HOLY CRAP I LOVED THT MOVIE!!!!! IF U PPL THOUGHT IT SUCKED, YOUR CRAZY!
P.S. MR.TUMNUS ( FAUN ) WAS HOT!

opps..haha i was tlkn bout the narnia movie.. cuz i saw som1 say tht it suckd...but i dont no if thts what u ppl r tlkn bout.. hm sorry bout tht one then = )