How can this possibly be constitutional?

[Ganondagan]

The Constitution says two things about religion. 1. The government will not form a national church. 2. The government will not interfere in anyone's ability to worship as they choose.

Does a law putting the 10 commandments on the wall constitute the government forming a national church? NO Does it constitute the government keeping anyone from worshipping as they choose? NO

The ten commandments are on the supreme court building. America was founded on Christian principles.

Exactly. It takes a simple, uneducated mind to argue otherwise.

 

[Bodi]

America was founded on Christian principles.

Incorrect. The Constitution was based off of the Enlightenment.

,

 

[Bodi]

Dominion' reluctantly highlights far-reaching Christian roots of Western civilization​

Tom Holland book reluctantly highlights Christian roots of Western civilization

Holland does not write about the life of Jesus and never deals with the Resurrection narratives, but they were vital to the rise of Christianity, and Holland’s refusal to understand this most central aspect of Christianity is where “Dominion” misses the point from the very beginning. The book only e

religionunplugged.com

​

(REVIEW) Two thousand years ago, a no-name Jewish preacher died a violent death, then was resurrected from that death — so his followers said — and, by doing so, founded an empire that lasts to this day.

British historian Tom Holland, author of “Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World,” cannot get over how what he calls “the image of a god dead on a cross” changed world history. Thus, an obscure rabbi in first-century Israel started the world’s largest religion, impacting billions and forming the basis of Western civilization.
Holland has been criticized by other book reviewers of getting too wrapped up in his prose and thereby losing the reader in word clouds. This is true. The book’s scope is so huge that even the author gets lost.

But his main point remains clear: the West is so imbued with Christian thought that it’s impossible to detach it from its Christian roots. The very ideas that the strong should take care of the weak; that every life — even those who are handicapped or sick — have meaning; that the needy should be fed and clothed, are Christian at their very core. We take such notions for granted, but they were not always part of what civilized people thought in Rome, Greece, China, pre-Columbian America and so on.

Even the new American republic, influenced as it was by the future instigators of the French Revolution, was based on Christian assumptions. The Founding Fathers believed that all men, no matter Jew, Quaker, Calvinist or Catholic, were created in the image of God and equal, endowed with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such ideals were light-years away from how the ancient Greeks and Romans viewed mankind. The seeds of America’s founding documents, Holland points out, were taken from the book of Genesis.

For 2,000 years, Christianity has been the very root system of the West, its very soil. Even the French Revolution — atheistic as it was — could not change that. This is the point that should be expressed in Western Civ classes around the globe.

Christianity was not... morality was. Just because the two overlap does not mean that it is Christianity.




.

 

[Bodi]

Exactly. It takes a simple, uneducated mind to argue otherwise.

There is a lack of education when one is educated by religion.


.

 

[Ganondagan]

There is a lack of education when one is educated by religion.


.

Sometimes that's true, but it need not be. Science and faith complement each other in understanding the world.

 

[Ganondagan]

Christianity was not... morality was. Just because the two overlap does not mean that it is Christianity.

Christianity is the culutural foundation of westerrn civilization, not just morality. The fact that have been other influences does not change that.

 

[Gordy327]

Sometimes that's true, but it need not be. Science and faith complement each other in understanding the world.

No, not really. Science doesn’t say "God did it." They're polar opposites.

 

[Ganondagan]

No, not really. Science doesn’t say "God did it." They're polar opposites.

They are definately not polar opposites, despite your obvious pyschological need for it to be. There are thousands of scientists who understand that.

 

[Gordy327]

They are definately not polar opposites, despite your obvious pyschological need for it to be. There are thousands of scientists who understand that.

Science goes by evidence, not faith. No scientific article will say "this happens because of god." I know some theists feel a psychological need to merge science and faith together as an attempt to validate their beliefs. But they are incompatible. A large percentage of scientists, especially members of the NAS are not theistic.

 

[AZRWinger]

No, not really. Science doesn’t say "God did it." They're polar opposites.

So-called modern science ascribes the unknown to random chance or ignores it altogether such as with the Big Bang Theory or evolution's dependence on random mutation.

 

[Gordy327]

So-called modern science ascribes the unknown to random chance or ignores it altogether such as with the Big Bang Theory or evolution's dependence on random mutation.

"Unknown" in what way? How is the Unknown being ignored? The BB has objective empirical evidence to support it. Mutations can be random or not. In none of that is science declaring "it must be god." "God did it" is just the intellectually lacking/lazy "explanation" for things.

 

[Ganondagan]

Science goes by evidence, not faith. No scientific article will say "this happens because of god." I know some theists feel a psychological need to merge science and faith together as an attempt to validate their beliefs. But they are incompatible. A large percentage of scientists, especially members of the NAS are not theistic.

Sccience itself is based on faith, faith that there are laws and physical characteristics of nature that are consistent and can be studied and understood, rather than random nothingness.

 

[Gordy327]

Sccience itself is based on faith, faith that there are laws and physical characteristics of nature that are consistent and can be studied and understood, rather than random nothingness.

That is false. Science is based on what is empirically demonstrable, observed, reproduced, and falsified via the scientific method. If nature is studied and understood through science, faith is not necessary and is only an emotional comfort mechanism.

 

[Ganondagan]

So-called modern science ascribes the unknown to random chance or ignores it altogether such as with the Big Bang Theory or evolution's dependence on random mutation.

Science will eventually have to admit that there is a creator, many great scientists already have. There is more to that creation than the material world they play in.

 

[Ganondagan]

That is false. Science is based on what is empirically demonstrable, observed, reproduced, and falsified via the scientific method. If nature is studied and understood through science, faith is not necessary and is only an emotional comfort mechanism.

That is the reason non-believing scientists will never understand half or more of God's creation.

 

[craig]

The country was founded by people who wanted, among other things, religion freedom.
And the religion was Christianity.
The 10C are on the supreme court building
Our legal system requires witnesses to swear to God, with their hand on the Bible

Why do you ignore this?

When you are sworn in to testify, you will state your name and then, while raising your right hand, say, "I do" or repeat the oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". You can swear on a religious text if you choose, or you can make a solemn affirmation instead.

 

[Gordy327]

That is the reason non-believing scientists will never understand half or more of God's creation.

No evidence/proof for any god. Thats why science doesn't deal with it.

Science will eventually have to admit that there is a creator, many great scientists already have. There is more to that creation than the material world they play in.

When there is evidence for one, then maybe science will acknowledge it. Until then, there is no reason to accept and claims for a God and they can be dismissed as nonsense.

 

[Ganondagan]

No evidence/proof for any god. Thats why science doesn't deal with it.
When there is evidence for one, then maybe science will acknowledge it. Until then, there is no reason to accept and claims for a God and they can be dismissed as nonsense.

There already is evidence. Your don't understand it because you can't physically see, touch, and measure it. You have to access it through reason, philosophy, and faith.

 

[Gordy327]

There already is evidence. Your don't understand it because you can't physically see, touch, and measure it.

Cite this "evidence" then!

You have to access it through reason, philosophy, and faith.

Do you even know what evidence is? Here's a hint: it's not philosophy, faith, or feelings.

 

[Bodi]

Sometimes that's true, but it need not be. Science and faith complement each other in understanding the world.

I meant Religion instead of Science...

 

[Bodi]

Christianity is the culutural foundation of westerrn civilization, not just morality. The fact that have been other influences does not change that.

There is literally nothing in the Constitution that is based off of Christianity...

The Constitution, primarily the Bill of Rights, were based off of principles of the Enlightenment.


.

.

 

[Bodi]

They are definately not polar opposites, despite your obvious pyschological need for it to be. There are thousands of scientists who understand that.

And all of those scientists would agree that science is about fact and religion is about faith... which are polar opposites.


.

 

[Bodi]

Sccience itself is based on faith, faith that there are laws and physical characteristics of nature that are consistent and can be studied and understood, rather than random nothingness.

Wrong. Science is based off of evidence of laws and facts...

Religion is based off of hope and ignorance.


,

 

[Bodi]

Science will eventually have to admit that there is a creator, many great scientists already have. There is more to that creation than the material world they play in.

Science does not back up your faith because without evidence and fact it is not science...

. because

 

[Bodi]

The country was founded by people who wanted, among other things, religion freedom.
And the religion was Christianity.
The 10C are on the supreme court building
Our legal system requires witnesses to swear to God, with their hand on the Bible

Why do you ignore this?

That is not a foundation on religion or else people would not be able to simply "swear the tell the truth" as they can without the Bible. Juss because I say "Bless You" when one sneezes does not mean it is for religious purposes either.