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 ?

[jcrawford]

Why would you want any one but Christians with special representation?

We've got to learn to live and share the planet with monotheistic Jews and Muslims. What better place to establish a monotheistic state than the Empire State of NY?

Do you have problems with these religious democracies?

No. I don't live in them.

Would you rather be under theirs or a secular government that protects yours and every one else’s rights?

I'd rather live in one nation under God, in whom we trust than under your secular government which unlawfully denies and deprives monotheists of a good religious education in public schools.

[Wyvern]

We've got to learn to live and share the planet with monotheistic Jews and Muslims. What better place to establish a monotheistic state than the Empire State of NY?

Coming from you jcrawford thats funny, nearly every post you make tries to discriminate between one group or another. See even in this post you discriminate against both polytheistic and atheistic(what I consider buddhism no insult intended to all you buddhists out there) religions, so what, are you then proposing a purge or merely the denial of rights to these people?

I'd rather live in one nation under God, in whom we trust than under your secular government which unlawfully denies and deprives monotheists of a good religious education in public schools.

You still don't understand I see, in order to respect ALL religious faiths schools CAN'T teach ANY religious doctrine, not to mention the fact that a childs religious education should be handled by the parents and their religious institution.
Is god going to run this fantasy nation of yours? If not stop saying silly things like that and come down to earth.

[McCulloch]

I'd rather live in one nation under God, in whom we trust

Maybe we would be easier to convince if you could point out an example of a "religious democracy" where rights are protected.

than under your secular government which unlawfully denies and deprives monotheists of a good religious education in public schools.

Please do cite which law is being broken by the lack of publicly funded religious education. 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.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

than under your secular government which unlawfully denies and deprives monotheists of a good religious education in public schools.

Don't you have churches and homes for that? Surly you have a Christian community that can devote it's tax free money to indoctrinate and brain-wash your children with out using the schools for mind control games. Do you want them to also have a good Buddhist or hindu religious education in our public schools. You just can't get along with people that don't believe like you do.
Wyvern wrote:

Coming from you jcrawford thats funny, nearly every post you make tries to discriminate between one group or another. See even in this post you discriminate against both polytheistic and atheistic(what I consider buddhism no insult intended to all you buddhists out there) religions, so what, are you then proposing a purge or merely the denial of rights to these people?

So it isn't just me? With all is yelling about discrimination and racism he sure makes some weird statements. I think he might be projecting.
McCulloch wrote:

Please do cite which law is being broken by the lack of publicly funded religious education. 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.

They bitch about sex education and evolution.
I wonder how they would feel if they started teaching some Goddess religion? Not that there is anything wrong with that. My feeling is "You go Girl!".

[jcrawford]

than under your secular government which unlawfully denies and deprives monotheists of a good religious education in public schools.

Please do cite which law is being broken by the lack of publicly funded religious education.

The First Amendment.

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.

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

[McCulloch]

than under your secular government which unlawfully denies and deprives monotheists of a good religious education in public schools.

Please do cite which law is being broken by the lack of publicly funded religious education.

The First Amendment.

Now, I would assume that you have some legal and constitutional experts to back up your, so far unsupported assertion. Your singular interpretation of the First Amendment seems to be at odds with the more commonly held viewpoint.

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.

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.

I'll bet that jcrawford also trod on Superman's cape and spit into the wind too.

[jcrawford]

Now, I would assume that you have some legal and constitutional experts to back up your, so far unsupported assertion. Your singular interpretation of the First Amendment seems to be at odds with the more commonly held viewpoint.

Yes, it is rather a minority viewpoint that only a few constitutional experts hold.

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.

I don't say that the SCOTUS is unanimously wrong on all occasions but I'm sure glad I wasn't around when they blew it with their infamous Dred Scott decision.

I sure hope Roe/Wade is soon overturned because if there is ever need for another military draft in the US, married men won't have to bear arms if their wives don't have to bear their children while they're off fighting foreign wars.

[Cathar1950]

I sure hope Roe/Wade is soon overturned because if there is ever need for another military draft in the US, married men won't have to bear arms if their wives don't have to bear their children while they're off fighting foreign wars.

They don't have to bear children now and they are fighting. I don't know what a draft has to do with anything. Unless you are saying married men that have wives having children makes them want to go to war and fight. I realise it can be tuff at home with the wife and kids. Or maybe you think they have to stay home and watch them so some Jew or atheist doesn't grab them and give them an abortion while they are gone? I have to watch the daily show.

[McCulloch]

Now, I would assume that you have some legal and constitutional experts to back up your, so far unsupported assertion. Your singular interpretation of the First Amendment seems to be at odds with the more commonly held viewpoint.

Yes, it is rather a minority viewpoint that only a few constitutional experts hold.

Would that be a minority opinion? If so, is the justice that authored the minority opinion still on the bench? Did any other justices side with the minority opinion or was he a sole dissenter? Are any of these other justices still on the bench? Have there been any subsequent decisions which indicate that the court is moving in that direction?

Only a few constitutional experts. OK, which ones? Are they practicing constitutional lawyers or justices? Do they have tenure at accredited law schools? Please cite at least three bona fide constitutional experts who hold that "secular government which unlawfully denies and deprives monotheists of a good religious education in public schools."

[jcrawford]

Or maybe you think they have to stay home and watch them so some Jew or atheist doesn't grab them and give them an abortion while they are gone?

I would advise any Jew, Christian or Muslim in Uncle Sam's army to uphold the US ban on abortions for wives and daughters of military men who are fighting for religious freedom and rights in the world. Atheistic and secular medical doctors who practice their abortion skills on the wives and daughters of American soldiers without their fully informed and explicit religious consent ought to be .......