Christian: America Not A Christian Country
Man, I would never in a million years think that I would post something by Cal Thomas, self-righteous radical rightwing religious nut. Like, HERE he philosophizes about last year's Montgomery County condom video. Brilliant, really got a lot to add to the discussion.
But like they say, even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while. Today he makes a little sense.
From The Post:
Of course, that isn't what the Commandment says, but ...
OK, this should close the question.
But like they say, even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while. Today he makes a little sense.
From The Post:
Isaiah Already Answered This Question
The prophet Isaiah wrote: "Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales...Before Him all the nations are as nothing; they are regarded by Him as worthless and less than nothing." (Isaiah 40:15-16). That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for those who claim America is a "Christian nation."
What does that mean? That we are all Christian? Of course not, because all are not.
Declaring America as special, or uniquely Christian, or more favored by God than, say, Canada, or Mexico, or even Iran, is a form of idolatry.
It also reflects an unbiblical view that God's Kingdom and the United States have a kind of "special relationship," the theological equivalent of the "special relationship" that has existed between the U.S. and Britain. A lot of Scripture has to be twisted to reach such a conclusion.
Only individuals can be Christian, not countries, and those who think otherwise are in danger of breaking the Commandment, "Thou shalt not have no other gods before me." Isaiah Already Answered This Question
Of course, that isn't what the Commandment says, but ...
OK, this should close the question.
posted by JimK at 10:02 PM
26 Comments:
Here's someone from Andrew Sullivan's blog weighing in on the use of the term "Christianist":
"Christianist" is a strictly neutral term - it describes a specific political position about the relationship between Christian faith and the state. If I actually believed that Christianity is the one true religion, and that the US government should be based on my understanding of the dictates of Christianity, I'd think that Christianist would correctly describe me, and I wouldn't take offense. If you had said something like "evil Christianists," then I'd take offense.
The real reason that the current political leaders who can be rightly called Christianists take offense is not, as you suggest, because you are equating Christianity with Islam, but because, for political purposes, they wish to deny the truth about the radical nature of their claim on the state. They wish to keep claiming that their agenda is not radically at odds with the Constitution. It is the way Communists often took power by claiming that they are merely agrarian reformers. Christianists are mad because the term tears off their mask. Or, to be more charitable, they don't want to admit to themselves the radical unconstitutional nature of their claim. Agreeing to be called Christianists will force them to be as honest as Islamists are about their political claim. They can't do that and stay in business.
You're warped, Dana, but since it's Christmas, let me just say you're fun to read.
Jim, Cal Thomas goes to the same church as I. We have Tuesday night classes on various topics and last Spring, one of the classes was called "Hot Topics". (You might remember that I brought up here one class where a couple of ex-gays from Exodus came to share their stories.) Anyway, in another class, Cal discussed the relationship between faith and politics. He had about an hour's worth of discussion about why America is not a Christian nation. He sounded so much like Dana that I almost posted a comment about it the next day but instead got sucked by the Dr into some other inflammatory discussion and forgot about it.
You might want to check out some of Cal's other books. It might help you to overcome your stereotypical vision of evangelical Christianity. You may know that he was the second in command in Moral Majority back in the seventies. He has written a book called "Blinded by Might" about his experience and warning Christians about involvement in politics. You might want to check it out. If you promise to read it, I'll send you a copy for Christmas.
You should have invited him to your government and religion seminar. He's actually pretty funny.
Oh, and BTW, Cal's opinion does not end the discussion.
"1And God spoke all these words, saying,
2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3"You shall have no other gods before me."
First three verses of Exodus 20.
"Only individuals can be Christian, not countries, and those who think otherwise are in danger of breaking the Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.""
Copied and posted from washingtonpost.com.
Haha, pretty funny. They changed it after he posted it. My text of course was copy-and-pasted, as well, and that's how he said it.
JimK
Hardy-har-har!
More likely a typo at the Post than one by Cal that slipped past the copy editors there.
But, we all know that.
ho-ho-ho
Hey, Anon, a few things:
One, those paragraphs on Christianists are not from me, though they represent my opinion. They are from a reader of the Sullivan blog.
More and more evangelicals are discovering the error of their ways politically speaking. Separation of church and state is even better for churches than it is for the state.
And, finally, I'm glad I give you so much pleasure, but, I wonder, can you sing those verses from Exodus for me, please, in the original Hebrew? If not, I will invite you to hear me sing them later this winter.
"More and more evangelicals are discovering the error of their ways politically speaking. Separation of church and state is even better for churches than it is for the state."
It sure is. But really, few have made this "error". Most of the stuff you complain about here doesn't fall under that category at all. You basically think any moral position held by Christians is invalid as a religious position. Morality and religion aren't the same thing. Disenchantment with the gay agenda crosses denominational lines. Christians are citizens and have the same obligation to vote their conscience as anyone else.
"And, finally, I'm glad I give you so much pleasure, but, I wonder, can you sing those verses from Exodus for me, please, in the original Hebrew? If not, I will invite you to hear me sing them later this winter."
I'm sure tickets will be hard to get.
"gay agenda"
homosexualist agenda
We've discussed this before:
The Gay Agenda:
1. Call meeting to order
2. Pledge of alliegence
3. Approve last month's minutes
4. Secretary's report
5. Treasurer's report
6. President's report
7. Old Business
8. New business--Corrupt Youth
9. Set date for next meeting
10. Close meeting
You're right, there it is, right under New Business. How could I have missed it.
Did Socrates have meetings like this?
Yours in the holiday spirit.
Robert
Robert
The agenda goes beyond corrupting youth (although you're right, that's part of it.)
The homosexualist agenda is seeking to impose on our society an affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle and penalize any citizen who does not cooperate. Ways to accomplish this goal would be the old and new business of the meetings of these homosexualist organizations.
Robert,
He's just poking fun at me -- as if I had coined the term "Christianist."
Pray tell, Anon, how do you feel you're being PENALIZED by the sex-ed curriculum in Montgomery County?
Also, I never equate morality with religious ethics. Morality precedes religion by millions of years. Christians certainly have the right to vote their conscience like anyone else; they just don't have the right to impose their particularlist values on anyone else. And THAT is a position that a large majority of Americans support.
"Pray tell, Anon, how do you feel you're being PENALIZED by the sex-ed curriculum in Montgomery County?"
I'm not going back to high school. My fear is where the schools will take this. Evangelical kids have a right to their opinion. They have a right to voice their opinion. Once an offical view of homosexuality is established by the schools, how long will it be before some activist kid is saying that an orthodox Christian view amounts to hate speech? It would be inevitable. Just like some of the excesses you hear about in the name of the seperation of church and state.
"Also, I never equate morality with religious ethics. Morality precedes religion by millions of years. Christians certainly have the right to vote their conscience like anyone else; they just don't have the right to impose their particularlist values on anyone else."
Wouldn't any view be particularist to someone? Shouldn't we decide our community values in a collective way?
We do decide our community values in a collective way, Anon. It's called "elections," be it for the school board, the county council, or the state legislature. You and your friends are simply unable to accept that you are part of an extremely small minority here in Montgomery County. Move out west to Orin's land and you won't feel so alone.
The slippery slope argument is specious. We're talking about sex education, in which there is no place for religious beliefs. You have demanded that, and rightly so. So if an orthodox Christian kid decided to speak up on his view of Biblical sexual morality, his teacher would tell him there is no room for that discussion in the class. Same as if a Conservative Jewish kid were to discuss his movement's views.
I believe there should be forums for that outside of the classroom, just as I believe religious history and philosophy should be taught in school, but that's another whole discussion.
I fail to see how having a health education curriculum that includes information from mainstream medical and mental health professional associations and does not include the contrary views of a few theologically/ideologically-based groups infringes on the right of any student to express his or her view that the medical community is wrong.
Students are free to say whatever they wish about their views, even if contrary to the mainstream science. Just as students are free to assert Holocaust Denial or a Creationism beliefs, nothing will prevent a student from asserting his or her personal belief that homosexuals can and should change and be straight. But that does not mean that MCPS must treat such views as true, nor does it mean that health teachers should or must respond to such statements with full scale debates in class. Let's remember that we are talking about health classes, not social studies classes. Health classes are essentially science classes, and it is perfectly legitimate for MCPS to follow the mainstream medical conclusions.
My view is that if a student taking a health class wishes to state his or her religious objection to the conclusion of the doctors, he or she is free to do so -- but that it is perfectly fine for the teacher to respond that the subject of the class is NOT theology, but rather health and that MCPS has chosen to follow the understandings of the mainstream medical community.
"I fail to see how having a health education curriculum that includes information from mainstream medical and mental health professional associations and does not include the contrary views of a few theologically/ideologically-based groups infringes on the right of any student to express his or her view that the medical community is wrong."
The problem is- and your bias is too strong to allow you to see this- neither a view that homosexuality is a disease or that it is a choice is information. It is opinion based on philosophical assumptions that are not verifiable.
"Students are free to say whatever they wish about their views, even if contrary to the mainstream science."
They won't be if homosexualists succeed in having the opinion that homosexuality is against God's wishes characterized as hate speech. It's a preposterous notion but one that is being actively pursued by homosexualists.
It's a preposterous notion but one that is being actively pursued by homosexualists.
Hey Anon, not that I don't believe you or anything, but how about posting a link for that assetrtion?
JimK
"Just as students are free to assert Holocaust Denial or a Creationism beliefs, nothing will prevent a student from asserting his or her personal belief that homosexuals can and should change and be straight."
Any rational person must take umbrage at David's outrageous association of Holocaust denial with creationism and belief in traditional morality.
"My view is that if a student taking a health class wishes to state his or her religious objection to the conclusion of the doctors, he or she is free to do so -- but that it is perfectly fine for the teacher to respond that the subject of the class is NOT theology, but rather health and that MCPS has chosen to follow the understandings of the mainstream medical community."
Yes. Health class should be about health. Why then did the old CAC suggest including value judgments in the MCPS health curriculum?
You know, Anon, I don't take umbrage at David's assertion because he was trying to goad you, which he did. It's something you do here all the time.
I still don't know what "traditional morality" means for you. Are you speaking of the priestly Jewish morality of 3000 years ago? The incipient Christian morality of 1800 years ago? Are you talking of the Biblical relationship codes of parents and children, or of men and their sisters-in-law?
Or, as I expect, are you simply talking of one sentence from Leviticus which appears to be the focus of your family life?
I was glad that the last revised curriculum included the following information for MCPS students and hope the new one does too:
* Define terms related to human sexuality
* Define stereotyping and discuss generalizations regarding sexual identity
* Examine factors that influence stereotyping and generalizations regarding sexual identity
* Explore how cultural and family values affect relationships and marriage
* Explore the effect of family stress and divorce on the family and society
* Describe the process of pregnancy and birth, recognizing the importance of prenatal care for the mother and fetus
* Discuss the effects of hormonal changes on the body and on behavior throughout the life cycle
* Analyze the influence of peer pressure and other factors on an individual's decisions regarding sexual behavior
* Analyze consequences of sexual activity
* Examine myths and misconceptions about human sexuality
* Discuss the social, emotional, and economic impact of teenage parenting
* Discuss how family values, culture, religious views, and other factors influence family planning
* Identify abstinence from sexual intercourse as the most effective means of pregnancy prevention
* Identify and describe methods of pregnancy prevention
* Define terms related to human sexuality
* Define the term family and describe a variety of differing family configurations that exist in society
* Cite ways in which culture and other forces affect family values and practices
* Describe how the family meets the needs of its members throughout the life cycle
* Discuss effects of hormonal changes on behavior throughout the life cycle
* Describe factors that contribute to sexual identity as part of personal identity
* Identify issues that may enhance or threaten relationships, marriage, and families
* Identify and describe the anatomy and physiology of the human reproductive systems
* Describe physiological dysfunctions, STD's, and psychological factors that affect human reproduction
* Describe fertilization, fetal development, and child bearing
* Identify the most prevalent congenital and hereditary conditions that affect the fetus
* Examine how culture, value systems, and the family influence attitudes toward sexual behavior
* Analyze how the media and social trends influence relationships, sexual behavior, marriage, and family
* Analyze risks and consequences of sexual activity
* Recognize how laws relate to relationships, marriage, and sexual behavior
* Demonstrate resistance skills and assertive behaviors which contribute to healthy sexuality
* Analyze the responsibilities and psychological impact of marriage and parenthood
* Examine moral, religious views, health, and economic considerations that influence family planning decisions
* Identify abstinence from sexual intercourse as the most effective means of preventing pregnancy
* Evaluate methods of family planning and the effectiveness of methods of contraception
PTA
Anonymous expressed concern:
that "orthodox Christian view amounts to hate speech."
There is a fine line between hate speech and legitimate religious views, since some religious views most of us would label as hateful. The question is what can students say, when can they say it.
Another question is what is inflammatory.
Many religions feel that people who are not members of their religion are condemned to eternal damnation, lakes of fire, etc. Would wearing a T-shirt that said that be hate speech? Would it be inflammatory? Would it constitute creating an unsafe environment in school?
The courts are always testing these lines. The current debate I hear most about is students asserting either pro- or anti- gay people. Different people have different reactions. I hear several times a year from kids that being gay is sinful.
Anonymous, even if religious kids have the right to put gay people down, is it polite? Paul said not to do this (again, Rom. 2:1-4).
Robert
Anonymous at
December 18, 2006 11:27 PM said "Any rational person must take umbrage at David's outrageous association of Holocaust denial with creationism and belief in traditional morality.".
Earth calling Anonymous!
Earth calling Anonymous!
come in Anonymous.
The "traditonal morality" in your buy-bull says gays must be put to death! Your denial of the evil of that is exactly the same as holocaust denial! The buy-bull's demand that gays and non-jews be put to death is clearly and undeniably hate speech. Read the old testament, the hate seethes out of it page after page after page.
Dana writes:
"You know, Anon, I don't take umbrage at David's assertion because he was trying to goad you, which he did. It's something you do here all the time."
Actually, I was not trying to goad Anon. I simply was responding to his/her baseless assertion that the Staff-proposed curriculum was an infringement on students' freedom of speech. If this was goading, then I would like to think it is akin to the famous incident in 1948, when, at a Truman rally, one of his supporters yelled out, "Give 'em Hell, Harry!" To which Truman responded, "I just tell the truth, and they think it's Hell."
Post a Comment
<< Home