Christian Exodus

[McCulloch]

http://www.christianexodus.org/
ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our liberties in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State's sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Is this a true expression of Christianity?

[BeHereNow]

Wuntext: See, this is where my confusion stems from. A state religion does not automatically mean a religious state.
I live in a country where there is a state religion, where unelected religious leaders have automatic (but limited) input into government business, and religious education is mandatory in schools (and I'm glad it is). And yet I don't live in a theocracy, far from it, I live in one of the most secular societies in Europe.

We would agree that a state religion does not automatically mean a religious state.
Likewise, a secular state does not automatically mean an irreligious or secular society.

If you want to say, "Hey, its not impossible that a religious state would allow freedom and opportunity to all of its citizens, regardless of creed.", I will agree.
If you want to say, "In all likelihood, a religious state will allow equal freedom for all citizens", we have disagreement.
If you want to explain why it is natural for religious leaders to allow equal treatment for unbelievers, I will listen.
What I see is that religious leaders want unbelievers to conform (at least outwardly) to their code of conduct (exactly). This is not what I consider freedom or equal treatment.

We are discussing a particular case, that of the U.S.
The founding fathers had seen many examples where the state sponsored a particular religion, and felt the killings and punishments for unbelievers was not justified. During the protestant reformation these killings and punishments were Christian against Christian. Likewise the witch hunts of Europe and Salem.
They had seen no examples of a state sponsored religious system worth emulating.
Many of the founding fathers felt the clergy was a self-serving and unjust lot (as a whole, with many exceptions, of course). For men like Jefferson, Washington, Paine, and even Lincoln, the idea of the clergy having decision making power over the laws and policy of a nation bothered them. As "good" Deists, they had no objection to people who followed their heart and developed a strong moral code, often based on religious teachings, also being political leaders. However, they did not feel a political leader "needed" or "ought to be" from one or any particular religion. They recognized that it was the beliefs and actions of men that mattered, not their particular religion. They recognized the value of moral teachings, not only in the bible, but in other religions and secular teachings as well.



Why are you glad a religion you do not adhere to, is mandatory education for school students?
It may help if you name your country and the religion.

In the US, unelected religious leaders have automatic (its in the nature of our politics), but limited, input into government business. They may not get their way, but they do have input.

[Jose]

Well, wuntext, we've had an occasional member from a country like yours--perhaps it is yours--in which everyone is automatically born into a particular religion. Yet, the laws of that religion are not necessarily the laws of the land, and everyone's pretty happy. I would suggest that there is much more going for you than just the religion.

But, if you look at the current debates about U.S. Christianity on this website, you'll see that there are a number of people who feel very strongly that their particular view of religion should be mandatory for everyone. Their vision seems to include strict regulation of schooling, of behavior between adults, and so on. You can find the view expressed here that homosexuals should be killed because they somehow violate religious law. Should this particular version of Christianity be made into the State Religion, we'd have, in essence, a Christian Taliban. It would be just as strict, just as intolerant, and just as repressive. By eliminating most of science from schools, it would also lead to the decline and fall of the US as a world power.

In most instances, it seems to be the fanatical who want their religion to be the One And Only National Religion. Because the fanaticism tends to be sect-specific, there tends to be a certain amount of friction between the fanatics who would be in charge and other sects--witness the fact that some of the DC&R members have said that they are "True Christians," and that all others are "just Pretenders." Witness also the fighting between Shia and Sunni, which is pretty much the same idea. We can also look at places like Colorado City, AZ, which is a good example of required adherence to one flavor of a religion (in this case polygamist Mormon), and think about the response of the fundamentalists when this flavor of Mormonism is made Law.

Especially now, when we have absorbed immigrants from just about everywhere, and therefore have bazillions of religions represented, it makes more sense to accept multiple religions, and have the laws of none be enshrined in Federal Law. It also makes sense to teach a religion class, but one that looks at many religions rather than teaching about only one. Such comparative religion classes exist in some of our schools, where they really do help students become much more tolerant of others. They often do so, however, in the face of protest by parents, who don't want their children contaminated with logical thought.

[wuntext]

If you want to say, "Hey, its not impossible that a religious state would allow freedom and opportunity to all of its citizens, regardless of creed.", I will agree.
If you want to say, "In all likelihood, a religious state will allow equal freedom for all citizens", we have disagreement.
If you want to explain why it is natural for religious leaders to allow equal treatment for unbelievers, I will listen.

We have nothing to disagree about here.

What I see is that religious leaders want unbelievers to conform (at least outwardly) to their code of conduct (exactly). This is not what I consider freedom or equal treatment.

Obviously two different cultures. Here, religious groups who evangelise in such a manner are insignificant and are generally treated as a mild irritation.
The only evangelising religion that might be considered to be not insignificant and more than just an irritant by a large section of the population is Islam.

The founding fathers had seen many examples where the state sponsored a particular religion, ....They recognized the value of moral teachings, not only in the bible, but in other religions and secular teachings as well.

Right. So it is a Constitution thing.

Why are you glad a religion you do not adhere to, is mandatory education for school students?
It may help if you name your country and the religion.

I live in the UK. And the reason I'm glad religious studies are compulsory here is that kids, on the whole, are not stupid.
The comparative study of religions in an academic setting where outside pressures to conform to one particular belief are absent means the pupils don't take too long to spot the inconsistencies within and between religious belief systems.
This, married to a solid grounding in initially mandatory Physics/Chemistry/Biology classes develops healthily sceptical young adults.

[wuntext]

Well, wuntext, we've had an occasional member from a country like yours--perhaps it is yours--in which everyone is automatically born into a particular religion. Yet, the laws of that religion are not necessarily the laws of the land, and everyone's pretty happy. I would suggest that there is much more going for you than just the religion.

Thankfully I can't think of any significant religious laws here. There maybe some obscure 17th century anachronisms lurking on the statute books, but nothing to worry about.
Yes, indeed we have more than religion going for us. But the point of my first post was to try to discover whether the resistance to an established religion was primarily Constitutionally based, or if there was another less apparent reason.
Reading your post, it seems from the outside that what was once considered America's greatest asset - the diversity of the opinions and cultures of it's people - could become America's Achilles heel in the future.

[BeHereNow]

wuntext The comparative study of religions in an academic setting where outside pressures to conform to one particular belief are absent means the pupils don't take too long to spot the inconsistencies within and between religious belief systems.

When you said "state religion" and "religious education is mandatory", I naturally assumed the mandated studies were of the state religion. Comparative religion is a different story.
From my experience, evangelical Christians have no interest in allowing comparative religion courses to be taught in public schools. Unless, that is, Christianity is taught as "the" religion, and all other religions are presented as demonic, pagan, false, etc. I do not consider that to be the meaning of "comparative religions".

[wuntext]

From my experience, evangelical Christians have no interest in allowing comparative religion courses to be taught in public schools. Unless, that is, Christianity is taught as "the" religion, and all other religions are presented as demonic, pagan, false, etc. I do not consider that to be the meaning of "comparative religions".

I do not consider that to be the meaning of "comparative religions" either. But the same conditions obviously do not apply in your country as mine. Because here any teacher who taught that religions other than Christianity are "demonic", "pagan", or "false" would not have job for very long.
Who sets the curriculum in US schools? Is it done at state or federal level?

[BeHereNow]

wuntext But the same conditions obviously do not apply in your country as mine. Because here any teacher who taught that religions other than Christianity are "demonic", "pagan", or "false" would not have job for very long.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, that is not allowed in our public schools either.

Who sets the curriculum in US schools? Is it done at state or federal level?

The Feds set parameters, and the states and locals stay within those guidelines.
In the case of religion, the feds allow the schools to teach "true" comparative religions. This seldom happens, because there is always a sizable minority that objects to an unbiased viewpoint.
There are private schools, that are allowed to teach religion as they want, as they are self funded.
Evangelicals have tried to circumvent federal guidelines by various means, but seldom or never succeed.
At the University level, true compatative religion is usually offered, but not mandatory.