Jerry,
I'm not sure if you got the email response I sent to Margaret before you composed yours or not, but I think mine makes clear that I was making a rhetorical point. My responses were SUPPOSED to be absurd, just as the original email purporting that Muslims cannot be good citizens was absurd. Read it below if you missed it before:
___________________________________________
(beginning of email to Margaret that was CC'd to you)
You may call me nsfl.
I don't think you got the point of my email. The point of my email was to show that just as Scriptures can be used to claim that Muslims cannot be good Americans, so they can also be used against Christians. And my suspicion is that, just as you feel that the ones I used were taken out of context, so many good American Muslims would probably say the exact same about the email that maligned them.
If you really believe that our nation was founded on "Christian principles," I fear you may be engaged in some quasi-revisionism of history: America was founded by a revolution against monarchy, in direct contradiction to the Bible's (NEW Testament) mandates on submitting to authority (Romans 13) and rendering unto Caesar that which is due him. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that in any way, shape, or form looks like representative democracy and the free society that we have. After their return from exile, and after the Maccabean Revolt, the Hebrews lived under a theocracy until they were conquered by the Romans, who allowed them some freedom but eventually felt their society too incapable of assimilation. Never did the Jews enjoy any semblance of freedom of religion, expression/speech, assembly, petition, press...the very things our country is founded on. I simply don't understand people who claim that this nation is somehow founded "upon" God/the Bible. I see very little concern from God/the Bible over civil liberties, domestic freedoms and taxes.
The American Revolution began as a reprisal against "taxation without representation," hardly a holy motive. While I'm certainly glad that it did, the liberties that some Christians take with re-writing the motives and actions of our nation's founding is troubling to me. While most of the Declaration's signers were Christians, a notable number of them were not, and our nation's Constitution was literally the first in the history of the world to leave out any reference to a deity of any kind. A thorough debunking of some "Christian nation" claims can be found here:
http://www.bjcpa.org/resources/pubs/pub_walker_barton.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2003/12/answering_a_christian_nation_e_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/staclu_and_the_christian_natio.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/madison_and_the_christian_nati.php
As Ed said in the third link above,
This nation was founded by and is based entirely upon the Constitution. If it was really founded on "Christian principles", then it shouldn't be too difficult to point to specific provisions in the Constitution and point to their analogs in the Bible. I doubt you can. I can point to provision after provision in the Constitution and trace them directly to the writings of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, among other Enlightenment thinkers. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? The notion of unalienable rights? Religious freedom? These things are utterly non-existent in the Bible, and were throughout the history of Christian thought as well. They come from Enlightenment philosophy, not from Christianity.If you can show me how any of these things are "Christian principles" from the Bible, I will stand corrected and apologize. Otherwise, what I would embrace, if I were you, are the concepts and freedoms afforded us in the Constitution, all of which were paid for with the blood of patriots, none "given" as some sort of free gift from God. It is their blood paying for those very things that enable you to worship and vote as you please.
By the way, thousands of people in the South used the Bible to JUSTIFY their slavery. Read Ex. 21. Simply put, the Bible can be used to argue from or for many things. I certainly don't find women's rights in the Bible, which is why it took so long for progressives (like me) to insist on women's suffrage (I insist on other, modern progressive reforms, of course).
Warmly,
nsfl
(end of email to Margaret that was CC'd to you)
______________________________________
Now, I will analyze your points below, prefaced by three carets ">>>". Keep in mind that I was composing these to sound like and follow the same reasoning as the points made about "good Muslims":
Jerry Kaifetz wrote:
>>>"One nation under God" was a MUCH later addition to our country's heritage -- the Founders wisely chose a secular motto: e pluribus unum.Margaret, this is some of most convoluted, tortured and twisted reasoning ever!Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Jesus, the Lord of Hosts. The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. (Ex 20:3)This is the entire foundational basis of our country: "One nation under God." The Founding Fathers ADVOCATED putting God first. This is neither mutually exclusive, NOR a zero sum game.
>>>I never said he was. However, you had perhaps better read over many of the parts in the NT that indicate that the world would "hate" them and persecute them, and so the idea that Christianity was going to peacefully coexist with secular societies was never advocated. If you insist you're right, we can trade chapter & verse, I guess.
Religiously - no . . . Because no other religion is accepted by his Jesus except Christianity (John 14:6, Bible). Christianity has always taught civil harmony with peaceful religions of a different stripe. How was Jesus a bad Roman citizen?
>>>Read much of the above email to Margaret. The Founders used the terms "religion" and "morality" very broadly -- they never claimed a person needed Christianity to be a good citizen, but they did think that people needed a form of religion to be moral. Of course, they were wrong. They were wrong about many things: slavery, women's rights, voting rights...
Scripturally - no. . . Because his allegiance is to Jesus, the doctrines of Christianity and the Bible.This is the MOST absurd of all! (I am incredulous that any thinking person could truly hold this view.) Allegiance to Christ was foundational in the patriotism of most of the founding fathers. Madison said it was essential to good citizenship. Even the Deists like Franklin & Washington held the highest place for God in this system of thought.
>>>Obviously you aren't disputing that Christians believe that they and Jews are God's favored people. As I said above, when I composed these, they were SUPPOSED to look stupid.
Geographically - no. . . . Because his God favors Israel "above all people," (Ex 19:5) and Jesus said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Luke 13:34)" The Jews were instructed to "purge" the land of all other ethnicities and religions by destro! ying them. God used the Jews as His agent for the destiny He had decreed. No Christians should ever take the worm's-eye-view of this & accuse God of ethnic cleansing. (Biblically, this comes awfully close to "the unpardonable sin.")
>>>Not only making friends. They were required to stone "outsiders" in terms of religion.Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with pagan witches or warlocks, and the Bible commands him to put them to death (Lev 20:27). So making friends with witches and warlocks is a prerequisite of good citizenship?????? Thankfully, we still have the freedom to choose our friends.
>>>Three questions: 1) Do the prophets teach the supremacy of Israel and the eventual destruction of all unbelievers? 2) Must believers must yield to the words of the prophets? 3) How are any of your responses contradictory to what I said?
Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the prophets (spiritual leaders), who teach the supremacy of Israel and the eventual destruction of all unbelievers. He must believe that all people of all other religions are inferior and will be cast into the lake of fire. This is a positively ridiculous and laughable interpretation of Hebrews 13:17, the passage on pastoral authority. It is off by light years! The obedience suggested by Paul has to do with a reasoned yielding to persuasive understanding and is based on the Greek word pisteuo -- meaning FAITH. The Lake of Fire will be populated by those who have rejected God's salvation. "Inferior" is hardly the word I would use to describe them.
>>>Again, keep in mind that the verses' context for the original email was not clear, either. However, do you need me to go to the parts of the New Testament that talk about slavery? Try 1 Cor 7, Ephesians 6, Colossians 4, Titus 2, Philemon 1, &c. Never once is slavery made an explicit sin in the Bible. Jesus never felt it was necessary to condemn slavery, although he had openings (Matt 18, Luke 7/Matt 8/, &c.) My point is that the Bible's prescription of how to treat women & slaves is hardly progressive or modern, and this applies as much to Judaism and Christianity as any charge against Islam.
Domestically - no. . . . People are given instructions for how to hold, sell and trade slaves, and also how to have more than one wife (Ex 21). If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. (Ex 21:7) If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can "let her go." (Deut 21:11-14) If a man marries, then decides! that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they we re married. If her father can't produce the "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father's doorstep (Deut 22:13-21). If your brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend tries to get you to worship another god, "thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death." (Deut 13:6-10) Women are inferior in that they are forbidden from entering the holiest of holies and cannot be priests (1 Tim 2:11-12). They are also "unclean" during their monthly period. It is sheer idiocy to judge anyone's moral code other than in the historical context in which they lived. Makes no more sense than to call people idiots for eating with dirty hands before germs were discovered.
>>>That's a laugh. If the Constitution was really founded on "Christian principles" and the Bible, then it shouldn't be too difficult to point to specific provisions in the Constitution and point to their analogs in the Bible. I doubt you can. I can point to provision after provision in the Constitution and trace them directly to the writings of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, among other Enlightenment thinkers. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? The notion of unalienable rights? Religious freedom? These things are utterly non-existent in the Bible, and were throughout the history of Christian thought as well. They come from Enlightenment philosophy, not from Christianity -- the Church had never developed anything resembling these concepts because they aren't found in the Bible. Most of the Enlightenment thinkers that developed these ideas used philosophy to argue for them; none used Scripture. They laid out their premises and drew support for certain conclusions using lines of reasoning and evidence. That is exactly how I prefer to come to my own conclusions. Am I saying, then, that this means that those concepts are UN-biblical? Some may be, from certain perspectives, but I don't really care either way. Most aren't "UN-biblical" or whatever, but if you can show me how any of these things are "Christian principles" from the Bible, I will stand corrected and apologize. Otherwise, what I would embrace, if I were you, are the concepts and freedoms afforded us in the Constitution, all of which were paid for with the blood of patriots, none "given" as some sort of free gift from God. It is their blood paying for those very things that enable you to worship and vote as you please.
Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on UN-Biblical principles, like the freedom of religion and conscience, and the freedom of speech and thought. The Bible is clear that all our words and thoughts should be taken under the captivity of Christ and that there is only one true religion. The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") ! condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. (Ex 20:3) There is no more thoroughly biblically based civil document in human history than the US Constitution.
>>>What kind of uneducated fool wouldn't know that Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but these words [the words of the law] will never pass away," (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33) What kind of uneducated fool wouldn't realize that they have to choose one of two things:
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Christianity, Jesus, and the Old Testament do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Christianity cannot co-exist. Every Christian government is either dictatorial or autocratic -- just consider the Dark Ages and the Inquisition! Ex 22:20 says, "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. Ex 23:13 says, "don't even mention the names of the other gods." This violates the freedom of speech. Ex 23:24 says, "Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property." This violates the freedom of religion. Ex 23:32 says, "Stay away from those who worship a different god." What kind of uneducated fool would not understand that the Bible contains a NEW TESTAMENT that Christ brought to REPLACE the OLD COVENANT! That is a lot like saying, "God causes volcanoes to erupt, and that is violent, so God is violent and should not be worshipped!"
1) That God is a moral relativist -- the things he told one group of people to do were good for them, but not for us. That means God's law is morally relative; we have a different set of standards for what is good and what is evil than they do because these standards are not objective and universal. What was moral then may or may not be moral now; what was immoral then may or may not be immoral now.
2) That God is a moral absolutist -- the standards of good and evil that God applied in the past, to any race or people or time period, are just are correct and true today as they were then. What was moral then is moral now; what was immoral then is immoral now.
Which side do you come down on?
>>>The Founders were wise enough to never mistake freedom of religion for freedom of denomination. They never used "Jesus" in any way in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Keep in mind that I was composing these to sound like and follow the same reasoning as the points made about "good Muslims"...
Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare ! "one nation under God," this unnamed God is all-inclusive, while Jesus should be named explicitly. He says in Mark 8:38, "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." The sovereignty of Christ has always made a complete provision for man's free will. The smallest children have no problem understanding that.
>>>If you say so, jk. You actually know nothing of me or my religious beliefs. Furthermore, you are obviously incapable of discerning that my response was meant to show how DUMB it was to try to say Muslims couldn't be good Americans, and that it was EQUALLY DUMB to say the same about Christians. I think your reading was careless, likely because you got emotionally invested in what was written and in refuting it before even bothering to figure out what the reason for my writing it was. As I said in the original email:
Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIANS in this country.
Margaret, this person has some incredibly deep-seated bitterness toward God, and just enough intellectual capacity to be dangerous to biblically and historically underinformed people. His entire system of reasoning is the most bizarre house of cards that I have ever seen! He is unable to distinguish between Christian and Muslim principles, and paints religion with the broadest and most careless brush I have ever seen. Sadly, he has bet his eternal soul that the Bible is a lie, and then compounded the consequences by infusing his poison into the lives of others. jk
"See how poorly this works out? Anyone can use Bible verses and this sort of logic to say the same thing about Christians as the email says about Muslims."And so obviously I meant it worked out just as "poorly" against Christians. Perhaps next time you'll invest some time and energy in reading comprehension before spending time and energy "refuting" points that were made in futility. Best of luck with that.
Highest regards,
nsfl
s
