Christianity vs. Democracy

[Bugmaster]

A statement we hear often nowdays is, "America is a Christian nation, it has been established based on Christian moral values". Conservatives use it to push for more "faith-based initiatives", for teaching Creationism in the classroom, and, generally, for tighter state/church integration -- all in the name of freedom and democracy.

However, this statement strikes me as decidedly un-democratic. If America was founded on Christian principles, then it follows that our government derives its authority from God, not from the people it governs. Thus, our government exercises the mandate of Heaven, or the divine right of kinds, and not the will of the populace. This makes democracy moot at best, and un-Christian at worst, because it implies that humans can override the will of the Lord as far as governance is concerned.

So... what's the deal ? Is democracy un-Christian ?

[micatala]

McCulloch wrote:
I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that the law is being broken when governments do provide publicly funded religious education.

jcrawford wrote:
Yes, they have, and their rulings are totally in violation of several amendments in the Bill of Rights of the states and the people.

This is a very strange view. The Supreme Court is the branch of government which is empowered to interpret the laws and to determine the priority of the laws (the constitution trumps a State Law, for instance). JCrawford comes along and claims that these legal experts of over two centuries are in error. You don't get away with claiming that the experts are almost unanimously wrong without a serious well thought out explanation.
We'll wait. This aught to be good.

Just to bring this question for jcrawford back into view, what portions of the Bill of Rights of which states are you referring to here? What 'peoples' rights are you referring to? Are these rights enumerated by any of the states, the constitution, or other laws?

[jcrawford]

Just to bring this question for jcrawford back into view, what portions of the Bill of Rights of the states are you referring to here? What 'peoples' rights are you referring to? Are these rights enumerated by any of the states, the constitution, or other laws?

The 9th and 10th Amendments refer to powers and rights not granted to the feds by the states or the people but specifically retained by them.

I would assume that the God-given rights enumerated in the US Declaration of Independence may be construed and counted amongst some of the rights which the English-speaking people had before the USC was established and ordained by them in order to preserve and guarantee them.

Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Right to abolish tyrannical government and to replace it with a form more suitable to them. Right to be free and independent states.

[micatala]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I will allow that I am not a legal scholar. That being said, I'm not sure how Amendment IX negates Amendment I. Amendment IX says that the list of rights given in the constitution does not meant that additional rights do not exist or cannot be granted. As I recall, it was instituted because the founders were fearful that any list would be interpreted to mean that no other rights, other than those enumerated, would exist.

Neither does Amendment X help your argument. The first amendment is part of the constitution and so applies across the country. The states are allowed powers not delegated to the United States federal governement, but first amendment issues would not be among these state powers according to the constitution.

Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Right to abolish tyrannical government and to replace it with a form more suitable to them. Right to be free and independent states.

I would not disagree. The enumerated rights were meant to embody pre-existing overall principles, including this statement from the Declaration.

What case could you make on the basis of these 'general principles' that we should institute Christian religious education in public schools, and that we could do so without violating the rights granted to others under these same principles and the rights enumerated in the BIll of Rights?

Having public education that does not include religious education does not constitute 'tyrannical government,' nor does it violate the rights of states to be free and independent. If there were no allowance for private schools or home education, you might have some grounds for a case, but even this would be a stretch without additional support for the case. I think the founders would say that there is a fairly strong threshold for a government to be considered 'tyranical.' Merely have some citizens disagree with a few laws does not come anywhere near this threshold. There needs to be a pattern of egregious infringement of rights and/or abuse of power.

[jcrawford]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I will allow that I am not a legal scholar. That being said, I'm not sure how Amendment IX negates Amendment I. Amendment IX says that the list of rights given in the constitution does not meant that additional rights do not exist or cannot be granted. As I recall, it was instituted because the founders were fearful that any list would be interpreted to mean that no other rights, other than those enumerated, would exist.

Neither does Amendment X help your argument. The first amendment is part of the constitution and so applies across the country. The states are allowed powers not delegated to the United States federal governement, but first amendment issues would not be among these state powers according to the constitution.

Not being much of a legal or constitutional scholar myself, I shan't take this opportunity to debate technicalities now, but will merely reserve the right to maintain my own independent legal theories regarding the religious nature and validity of human law itself.

The enumerated rights were meant to embody pre-existing overall principles, including this statement from the Declaration.

What case could you make on the basis of these 'general principles' that we should institute Christian religious education in public schools, and that we could do so without violating the rights granted to others under these same principles and the rights enumerated in the BIll of Rights?

Vouchers would at least enable some of the more economically and politically downtrodden black Christian masses to siphon off public monies from the treasury for religiously 'private' schools at no one's expense but the corrupt public school teacher's unions.

Having public education that does not include religious education does not constitute 'tyrannical government,' nor does it violate the rights of states to be free and independent. If there were no allowance for private schools or home education, you might have some grounds for a case, but even this would be a stretch without additional support for the case. I think the founders would say that there is a fairly strong threshold for a government to be considered 'tyranical.' Merely have some citizens disagree with a few laws does not come anywhere near this threshold. There needs to be a pattern of egregious infringement of rights and/or abuse of power.

Shucks. Lost my case again. I was doing better as the last of the Neandertals on the creation/evolution forum.

[Bugmaster]

I think we're kind of getting off-topic here. The question is not, "is America espousing some non-Christian values ?", or "is America un-democratic ?", but "is the very notion of Democracy -- a government whose authority stems from the will of the people -- un-Christian ?"

[McCulloch]

I think we're kind of getting off-topic here. The question is not, "is America espousing some non-Christian values ?", or "is America un-democratic ?", but "is the very notion of Democracy -- a government whose authority stems from the will of the people -- un-Christian ?"

But the two questions are related. If Democracy is un-Christian, then American democracy is un-Christian.
I think that we need a clarification of the meaning of the question.
Are we arguing about the idea, proposed by some, that if Christianity in its purest form, has enough influence on a society, that society will tend towards the ideas and ideals of democracy?
Or are we arguing about whether or not Christianity can without denying its fundamental principles, exist and even thrive, in a democratic society?
The debate has also raised the issue of secularism and democracy. Secularism, the idea that governments must be separate and neutral towards religions, has become an integral part of many democracies. Some would claim that secularism is necessary to true democracy. I think that this question is so closely tied to the question of "Christianity v. Democracy" that I do not wish to start a new thread to debate it. So, we have a total of four questions to deal with:

1. If Christianity in its purest form, has enough influence on a society will that society will tend towards the ideas and ideals of democracy? Is a Christian government necessarily democratic?
2. Can Christianity without denying its fundamental principles, exist and even thrive, in a democratic society?
3. Is secularism necessary to democracy?
4. Is Christianity necessarily opposed to secularism?

The answers to each of these questions will effect how you answer the other questions, so I would like to see them all argued in the same thread.

[Bugmaster]

Actually, I'm approaching this from a slightly different angle. Let's assume, for a moment, that Christianity is true and God exists. Given what we know about God's intentions for humanity, is democracy an acceptable form of government ? I.e., if Christianity is true, is it acceptable for a human government to derive its authority from humans, as opposed to deriving it from the Lord ?

Note that I'm not discussing any specific policies maintained by democratic societies, such as freedom of religion; I'm addressing the notion of democracy itself.

The other questions you propose are interesting as well, though; I wouldn't mind seeing them discussed here.

[McCulloch]

Let's assume, for a moment, that Christianity is true and God exists. Given what we know about God's intentions for humanity, is democracy an acceptable form of government ? I.e., if Christianity is true, is it acceptable for a human government to derive its authority from humans, as opposed to deriving it from the Lord ?
Note that I'm not discussing any specific policies maintained by democratic societies, such as freedom of religion; I'm addressing the notion of democracy itself.

I would assert that the answer to both of these question is no. As evidence, one could look at the various governments of God's people established by God recorded in what the Christians call the Old Testament: direct theocracy, the period of Judges, the monarchy. None of them were democratic. Moving to the New Testament, the only references to governments seem only to instruct Christians to submit to whatever government is in power, so long as that submission does not impede their devotion to God. When looking at Christians self-government within the church, one can find no evidence of democratic principles. Elders (bishops) are not directed to have been selected by democratic processes nor are they to rule in a democratic fashion. So it would be up to those who would argue that democracy was an acceptable form of Christian government, to cite biblical reasons for their position.

The other questions you propose are interesting as well, though; I wouldn't mind seeing them discussed here.

Thank you. I guess I should get the ball rolling.

1. If Christianity in its purest form, has enough influence on a society will that society will tend towards the ideas and ideals of democracy? Is a Christian government necessarily democratic?
   I believe that this is essentially a rephrasing of the original questions. The answer is no for the reasons stated above.
2. Can Christianity without denying its fundamental principles, exist and even thrive, in a democratic society?
   Here, I believe that the answer is yes. Unlike Islam, which as a religion, has outlined its own principles of governance and law, Christianity, which was established in a society in which it was a minority, has explicit instructions about how it is to exist in a society where it is in the minority or in a society where it does not exercise political power.
3. Is secularism necessary to democracy?
   I personally cannot see how the answer to this can be anything other than yes. If your ruling principle is that the people is the source of authority with regard to laws and governance, how can one specific religion be established by law?
4. Is Christianity necessarily opposed to secularism?
   I would have thought that the answer to this one is yes, Christians and other religions benefit from secularism by having their rights protected against an established state religion. However, Christian fundamentalists seem determined to oppose secularism.

[jcrawford]

I think we're kind of getting off-topic here. The question is not, "is America espousing some non-Christian values ?", or "is America un-democratic ?", but "is the very notion of Democracy -- a government whose authority stems from the will of the people -- un-Christian ?"

The whole question is rather moot, then, since the form of federal government in the USA is a republic, not a democracy.

[Bugmaster]

[*]Is Christianity necessarily opposed to secularism?
...Christians and other religions benefit from secularism by having their rights protected against an established state religion. However, Christian fundamentalists seem determined to oppose secularism.

Well, it all depends on which flavor of Christianity you subscribe to. If you believe that infidels go to Hell, then you should oppose secularism, because by encouraging people to explore religions other than Christianity (or worse, to remain atheists), the government would be actively sending people to Hell. And, since you love your neighbour (in a Platonic kind of way, heh), you do not want him to go to Hell just because he chose the wrong religion.