Posted by rblee on 06/21 at 04:53 AM | #
Some of these arguments remind me of the reasons our founders wisely declined supporting a state church but bathed the early government in christian concepts.
Jay would have us support the current defacto established religion of atheism and suppress our christian history. Most don't yet realize this establishment but if you look at how government funds are used to support atheist concepts and the creation myth of atheism, (darwinism), is the only allowed "theory" in our schools, you will understand how far we have come in establishing atheism as the state religion. He also conflates democratic and republican forms of government.
Our fathers knew better, "James Madison - “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”"
As we more and more feel the tyranny of the current state religion, many will harken back to the day when judeo/christian morality and puritan work ethic prevailed. It is not for nothing that the bible says, "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty."
Posted by rt on 06/20 at 04:48 PM | #
Thanks Kelly! There seems to be some confusion here about what is meant as “Christianity”. As I’m sure you know, there is not and never has been a generic Christianity. Let’s face it: you are either a Catholic or a Protestant (one who protests against Catholicism but is not entirely able to let go of it). While the US founding documents were written by a majority of these Protesters among the tiny group of 13 colonies, the rest of the hemisphere was decidedly under the aegis of Rome through Spanish, French and Portuguese monarchs. When Cristoforo Colombo claimed the New World for the Catholic Church and the King of Spain, the Magna Carta was a hoary 167 years old and besides tempering the relationship between the English monarchy and the feudal barons had little or no effect on that between Church and Throne in England or anywhere else. At the time of the landing on Guanahani (San Salvador) Martin Luther and Henry VIII were respectively 9 and 1-1/2 years old. Had Colombo known about the future mischief to be wrought by these two protesters, he would have been outraged. It’s not hard to imagine him dragging the tykes before the Inquisition. So, if it comes to a choice of which religious ideas are to govern us, it’s only sensible to choose those of the One True Holy Roman Catholic Church. We could use another JFK who is a bit more serious about religion.
Posted by rblee on 06/20 at 03:59 PM | #
The Magna Carta was not a step forward but a step backwards in a positive way. It attempted to return some sense of the rights Anglo-Saxons had before the Norman Invasion and feudilism. It was also preceeded by other lesser known documents and charters. It was not created in the mind of any one individual supposedly inspired by Christianity.
Posted by navy island on 06/20 at 02:15 PM | #
"How can the West hope to survive once we accept the admonitions of our atheist, Marxist priests and drop all vestige of Christianity?"
By the West, I assume you mean American Democracy.
The trouble is that I can't see the connection between democracy and Christianity. Certainly not as it is practiced as opposed to the teachings of Jesus. (As for the teachings :"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and render to God the things that are God's". That pretty much talks to separation.)
Democracy has its origin before Christ was born, in the city of Athens in Greece. Then it flourished for a while in another city state, called Rome, again before Christianity.
Therefore representative government based upon free elections does not require Christianity to exist.
At its best, religion incorporates and disseminates a set of moral values that are required for a society to function. At its worst, it fosters intolerance, hatred, and bigotry.
The men who brought the Magna Carta into existence were actually close to anti Christian radicals. They sought to limit the power of the king, and the church taught the concept of the divine right of kings, that kings were imbued with the power by the will of God.
I don't say that any society can survive without moral values, but I could argue that those values could be based on the teachings of Confucious, instead of Jesus.
Posted by Jay on 06/20 at 10:38 AM | #
Thanks, I have read quite a bit about the Mormons including what happened in Missouri. I even have a copy of a “history” book demeaning the Mormons every way it could. Only one problem with his “history” was that he consistently contradicted himself. I have the “nasty” habit of wanting “the numbers to add up” and when they won’t, the author has my undivided attention. That too is one reason I have no time for the traditions of men and get into the ancient text when needed. Nice part about doing that is that The Word makes total sense IF and only IF you get rid of the traditions of men which make The Word so confusing.
Posted by JohnMinn on 06/20 at 10:23 AM | #
I just read your article “IF CHRISTIANITY IS SO BAD, WHY DOES MODERN FREEDOM ONLY ORIGINATE FROM ITS ANCESTRAL TERRITORIES?”
It was reposted on The United States Patriot Union from Canada Free Press. I am sure you will get many positive comments and I wanted to add mine. Thank you for the excellence of your words. God bless you, I wish your calling was in the political realm. Our country needs people like you, like Stephen Langton.
I watched an interview this morning of Jon Stewart (comedian) with Chris Wallace (Fox News) and had to shake my head at the total vacuity of sense of right & wrong.
Semper Fi & God Bless.
Posted by Lloyd C. on 06/20 at 12:38 AM | #
The Founding Fathers did not want a State Church like those back in Europe. This is what they meant by the separation of Church and State. Now the unelected judges are saying it means anything and everything.
Posted by Kenneth T on 06/19 at 08:32 PM | #
Why Separating Church & State is a Fool’s Errand: Consider Magna Carta’s Origins
Posted by Kelly OConnell on Jun 19, 2011 at 11:47 PM
If Christianity is so Bad, Why Does Modern Freedom Only Originate From its Ancestral Territories?
It’s the default theory of modern western pop culture that church and state must be completely separated for the good of mankind. Talk-show blowhards (read Bill Maher) make disreputable livings off such anti-intellectual bilge. Yet, both common sense and the historical record reveal this goal is a dangerous mirage. The record shows the West has led the globe in innovation for the last millennium. Further, that the West could not have arisen without Christian ideas and practices. Finally, logic reveals without continuing guidance from the unique perspective of the Church, the West is destined to fall.More...
Post a Comment on: Why Separating Church & State is a Fool’s Errand: Consider Magna Carta’s Origins
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Next entries comments: Canada’s Shame – our Anarchistic Youth
Previous entries comments: The Jeffington Files
Note from the Editor:
This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com.
Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand.