America was founded as a Christian Nation

[musicman]

Actually it is: That governments are essentially corrupt.

Right - but they could scarcely fare otherwise - being the brainchildren of essentially corrupt humans. That man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and will always, then, fall short of the glory - always be corrupt - is the central presumption from which the U.S. Constitution flows. It ACCEPTS this truth, and deals with the matter of governance accordingly.

[Pale Rider]

Right - but they could scarcely fare otherwise - being the brainchildren of essentially corrupt humans. That man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and will always, then, fall short of the glory - always be corrupt - is the central presumption from which the U.S. Constitution flows. It ACCEPTS this truth, and deals with the matter of governance accordingly.

Excelent. Right on brother. You need to spend more time here...

[glockmail]

Right - but they could scarcely fare otherwise - being the brainchildren of essentially corrupt humans. That man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and will always, then, fall short of the glory - always be corrupt - is the central presumption from which the U.S. Constitution flows. It ACCEPTS this truth, and deals with the matter of governance accordingly.

Nice theory, but I prefer to read the founding documents at face value, that man is endowed by his Creator of certain unalienable rights, and that in order to secure these blessings, man institutes limited government, and that government should have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure it does'nt lose sight of its objective, which is to serve the people.

[musicman]

Nice theory, but I prefer to read the founding documents at face value, that man is endowed by his Creator of certain unalienable rights, and that in order to secure these blessings, man institutes limited government, and that government should have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure it does'nt lose sight of its objective, which is to serve the people.

It's not a theory at all; it is the Constitution taken at face value. Government is a necessary evil - one to be controlled by the governed, and diligently guarded, lest it go the natural way of governments. Just as you say, "governments are essentially corrupt". Why do you suppose that is? What existing condition makes government so?

It's human frailty, of course.

[Kathianne]

It's not a theory at all; it is the Constitution taken at face value. Government is a necessary evil - one to be controlled by the governed, and diligently guarded, lest it go the natural way of governments. Just as you say, "governments are essentially corrupt". Why do you suppose that is? What existing condition makes government so?

It's human frailty, of course.

Exactly, the world is Hobbsian and government flows from the idea that we don't want only the biggest and smartest to survive. From that point on, you set the best we can.

[musicman]

Exactly, the world is Hobbsian and government flows from the idea that we don't want only the biggest and smartest to survive. From that point on, you set the best we can.

And, that Christian principle in the matter of human governance can arrive at similar (not quite identical) conclusions WITHOUT calling for the roasting of Hobbsian thinkers as heretics underlines my "man's hard-won, enlightened understanding" qualification. That which is, in the matter of religion, coercive, has become theocratic. And, that which is theocratic has abandoned Christian principle. If this were called a Christian nation, it would, at that moment, cease to be so.

[LOki]

What do, 1) meticulous checks and balances, 2) a central government kept on a short, jealously guarded leash, and, 3) an ever-devolving path of power over the conduct of everyday life toward states, communities, and - ultimately - the individual, suggest to you?

They suggest to me a fundamental distrust of human nature. That governments - being the creations of imperfect men - must, left unchecked, degrade into tyranny; that man is incapable of rising to some "better aspect" of his nature, and thereby creating an earthly utopia; that the very best we can hope for is man's unfettered exercise of his free will, within the rule of civilized law - these are the inescapable conclusions of a UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE: that man is not perfectible.

LOL. You made this up. You're about to tell me that ONLY Christians hold this principle? Not Jews, not Muslims, not Bhuddists, not humanists, not rational people? Or perhaps you are asserting that this principle is neccessarily contingent upon believing that Jesus is God? Please.

Moreover, the bedrock principle of Christianity is that no man can be coerced into salvation; he must come of his own free will.

A complete denial of everything in the Bible. You should read it before you post such nonsense. The bedrock principle of Chrisianity is that salvation is submitting to coercion.

It is likewise in the U.S. Constitution: the POWER to coerce is thwarted at every turn; the free will of the individual is paramount. Show me the like of our Constitution anywhere else in human history, and tell me what drove it.

The application of the unlimited coercive power of God in government is a foundational principle not found in the US Constitution.

Does this mean that America is a Christian nation? No. Rather, we are a self-ruling people - according to man's hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to the matter of human governance. I say hard-won, because human beings tried and failed many times to achieve this, at a horrible cost. The painful lessons we had to learn were:

That man is essentially corrupt.

That - because he is corrupt - the governments he creates MUST tend toward tyranny and coercion.

That this tendency must be thwarted at every turn, if man is ever to be truly free.


In other words, Christian principle.

Yet these notions are still not uniquely Christian principles, and there is nothing about those principles that is necessarily contingent upon the belief that Jesus is God.

1. Claiming victory when arriving squarely at defeat seems to be your hallmark.
2. Nice second straw man.
3. Nice deflection of the argument. Try again or lose cred.

1. The most LOLsome example of self-unaware projection ever. You submit zero in the manner of substantiated support for your argument and then claim I have arrived at defeat--and you put that little bow of ignorance regarding what "hallmark" means on this fatuous package of dumb. BRAVO!!!!
2. Plus one more obstinantly dumbfuck refusal to understand what a Straw-Man argument is. All the more LOLsome.
3. Your nonsensical challenge--from someone sensible, a challenge worth considering; from you, it's just clown shoes.

Right - but they could scarcely fare otherwise - being the brainchildren of essentially corrupt humans. That man fell from grace in the Garden of Eden, and will always, then, fall short of the glory - always be corrupt - is the central presumption from which the U.S. Constitution flows. It ACCEPTS this truth, and deals with the matter of governance accordingly.

Nice theory, but I prefer to read the founding documents at face value, that man is endowed by his Creator of certain unalienable rights, and that in order to secure these blessings, man institutes limited government, and that government should have all kinds of checks and balances to make sure it does'nt lose sight of its objective, which is to serve the people.

I agree with Glockmail. [Let us observe a moment so that everyone can recover] The central presumption of the U.S. Constitution that Glockmail presents, is expressed in the preamble to The Bill of Rights:<blockquote><i>"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order <b>to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers</b>, that further <b>declaratory and restrictive clauses</b> should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."</i></blockquote>The ninth and the tenth "declaratory and restrictive clauses" confirm Glockmail's assertion that the central presumption of the U.S. Constitution is not that human beings are inherently corrupt, but rather that unlimited coercive power is inherently abusive.

[glockmail]

It's not a theory at all; it is the Constitution taken at face value. Government is a necessary evil - one to be controlled by the governed, and diligently guarded, lest it go the natural way of governments. Just as you say, "governments are essentially corrupt". Why do you suppose that is? What existing condition makes government so?

It's human frailty, of course.

You've made your point well.

[musicman]

LOL. You made this up. You're about to tell me that ONLY Christians hold this principle? Not Jews, not Muslims, not Bhuddists, not humanists, not rational people? Or perhaps you are asserting that this principle is neccessarily contingent upon believing that Jesus is God? Please.

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.

A complete denial of everything in the Bible. You should read it before you post such nonsense. The bedrock principle of Chrisianity is that salvation is submitting to coercion.

Show me.

The application of the unlimited coercive power of God in government is a foundational principle not found in the US Constitution.

Right. My point exactly.

Yet these notions are still not uniquely Christian principles, and there is nothing about those principles that is necessarily contingent upon the belief that Jesus is God.

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.

I agree with Glockmail. [Let us observe a moment so that everyone can recover] The central presumption of the U.S. Constitution that Glockmail presents, is expressed in the preamble to The Bill of Rights:<blockquote><i>"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order <b>to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers</b>, that further <b>declaratory and restrictive clauses</b> should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."</i></blockquote>

In other words: tighten the leash on central government EVEN MORE; we have seen the inevitable aspirations of the governments of men from time immemorial. Let's do it right this time - chain that bastard to a stake!

The ninth and the tenth "declaratory and restrictive clauses" confirm Glockmail's assertion that the central presumption of the U.S. Constitution is not that human beings are inherently corrupt, but rather that unlimited coercive power is inherently abusive.

And why is that so?

[LOki]

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.

Why? What is the purpose of accepting your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature; and then doing so, how does that in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

Show me.

Open your Bible, and look.

Fair enough; your task should be easy, then. Cite another example, in all of human history, of a governmental system which proceeds from the assumption of man's fallen, flawed nature.

You're right: it is easy. Every government system ever, proceeded from an assumption of man's imperfect nature--all of them.

And why is that so?

Because they confirm that rights are retained by the people, and powers a limited to those enumerated--that's why.

[musicman]

Why? What is the purpose of accepting your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature;

What's the alternative - assuming that the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny, because people are basically good?

and then doing so, how does that in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

Fine. Cite another example of a governmental system structured upon this principle.

Open your Bible, and look.

You disappoint me, LOki. You know nothing of God, yet you talk tripe about the Gospel.

You're right: it is easy. Every government system ever, proceeded from an assumption of man's imperfect nature--all of them.

And limited the central government accordingly for that reason? You're wrong.

Because they confirm that rights are retained by the people, and powers a limited to those enumerated--that's why.

But, why couldn't central government be trusted with broad powers over the people? Why does the U.S. Constitution - uniquely in human history - regard government with such distrust?

[LOki]

What's the alternative - assuming that the Constitution treats central government as a necessary evil, whose natural inclination is toward tyranny, because people are basically good?

There's no response to this question begging nonsense.

Fine. Cite another example of a governmental system structured upon this principle.

Having accepted your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature, how does citing another example of government that procedes under the assumption of man's flawed nature, in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

You disappoint me, LOki. You know nothing of God, yet you talk tripe about the Gospel.

You accuse without basis, and display obstinent ignorance while claiming I know nothing of God.

And limited the central government accordingly for that reason? You're wrong.

Every governement proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature--I am not wrong in this, unless you can point out the government that proceeds from an assumption of man's inherent perfection. But the very best part is that you have to demonstrate that EVERY government ever, except for that established by the US Constitution, proceeded from the assumption of man's inherent perfection, to demostrate the unique status of the US Constitution you're asserting. Good luck with that.

But, why couldn't central government be trusted with broad powers over the people? Why does the U.S. Constitution - uniquely in human history - regard government with such distrust?

It's good to know that petitio principii is still the breakfast of champions amongs theocrats.

[GW in Ohio]

There's no response to this question begging nonsense.

Having accepted your premise that the US Constitution proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature, how does citing another example of government that procedes under the assumption of man's flawed nature, in any manner demonstrate that the assumption of man's flawed nature is a uniquely Christian principle?

You accuse without basis, and display obstinent ignorance while claiming I know nothing of God.

Every governement proceeds from the assumption of man's flawed nature--I am not wrong in this, unless you can point out the government that proceeds from an assumption of man's inherent perfection. But the very best part is that you have to demonstrate that EVERY government ever, except for that established by the US Constitution, proceeded from the assumption of man's inherent perfection, to demostrate the unique status of the US Constitution you're asserting. Good luck with that.

It's good to know that petitio principii is still the breakfast of champions amongs theocrats.

LOKI: Thank you for engaging these wombats on this issue. You should get a medal for your patience and perseverence.

They really have a need to believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation (i.e., a theocracy) and continues that way to this day. I believe their need to see the US as a "Christian nation" is grounded in a deep insecurity about their religion.

Thanks again for engaging these whiny bastards.

[LOki]

LOKI: Thank you for engaging these wombats on this issue.

It's my pleasure.

You should get a medal for your patience and perseverence.

Maybe so, but I prefer cash.

They really have a need to believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation (i.e., a theocracy) and continues that way to this day. I believe their need to see the US as a "Christian nation" is grounded in a deep insecurity about their religion.

Indeed. A valid morality does not need to be validated by the coercive force appurtentant to a Government's monopoly regarding violence. That theocrats seek such validation is evidence that their notions of morality are unvalidated by rational means--their claims of moral superiority are irrational.

Thanks again for engaging these whiny bastards.

Thanks again.

[glockmail]

....

They really have a need to believe that this country was founded as a Christian nation (i.e., a theocracy) and continues that way to this day. I believe their need to see the US as a "Christian nation" is grounded in a deep insecurity about their religion.

.....

Speaking for myself, I have a need for the truth, which is that the USA was indeed founded on Christain principles by Christian men. I don't see any of the other posters on my side of the aisle suggesting otherwise.