Excerp: America is not a Christian Nation - Page 2

"In an atheist state, there is suppression of religion and atheism is explicitly taught. In a secular state, the government does exactly what it should, it doesn't MEDDLE in people's religious affairs."

The same happens in many secular states as well - maybe not to the same degree but give it time! Just look at France and their telling people how they must dress. Now that is outright meddling!!! Slippery slope between the two.

"Communism really its own religion. The way they deify Marx and Lenin makes me believe it might as well be a religion. Nazism was its own form of religion, Hitler's use of the word Providence was very common indeed. Its not religion, per se, which is evil. Its extremism."

Exactly - now you are making my point. Secularism is also a type of religion for many humanists.

"Secularism, by definition, cannot be extreme as its essentially laissez faire and it DOESN'T COMMENT on the matter"

Not true - not atleast when secularism is paired with humanism - then it has the potential to be very extreme.

"England is de facto secular. Yes we have a state church, yes we have a Queen, but we're de facto secular. We're not like Bavaria or Austria for instance who are officially secular but are iffy in practice. "

I may be wrong but aren't your taxes supporting your state religion? If so that is not de facto secular. Yes it is true that the Anglican church has embraced secular humanism as a foundation of its official tenets but times and people can change.

"But where is legitimacy derived from? God? No, THE PEOPLE! By the people, for the people."

Wrong. Its God. God has created all men equal thus the legitimate government must respect this fact. It was argued that Kings have a divine right to rule - the founders argued that God disagrees. The basis for their argument for legitimacy thus is God.

Well then I think your no better than Iranian mullahs. The legitimacy of their political system also derives from God, their argument for an Islamic Theocracy is the same as your argument for a Christian Democracy!

Now you are really being a hypocrite because in your heart you do not believe such nonsense and there is no point in trying to convince me that you do - I would never believe it.

I'm surprised in your argument. If a government's legitimacy comes merely from man then ultimately there can be no such thing as rights. You believe you have certain rights, correct? Who gives you those rights? The government? Or did God give them to you?

If man or the govt gave you those rights then they can take those rights away - those rights aren't objective and absolute but are merely a privilege given to you by some men with power - the same power to rescind them.

Now if God gives you your rights - as the Declaration declares which establishes God as ultimate sovereign - then no man can take them away - no govt can rescind them.

You are confusing God with religion - the two are not the same thing. An American Supreme Court ruling even validates this.

My rights come from my value as a human being.

The sad thing about the whole "it comes from God" crap is false. Ultimately, all justification comes from MAN. Sure a man can say "God told me we all have inalienable rights", but ultimately, the words come from the man, not God. It is based on the trust of a man, not God.

And the reason I think you are no better than Iranian mullahs is that if God told you "All men are not equal, White Christians are superior and should impose their form of government on heathens and infidels" then you would do it and think it righteous.

The mullahs' God is telling them you are the Great Satan, their justification is just as good as your's.

Your value as a human being? Who is to say there is any value in that? lol If not the Creator then its all subjective and what you may think is your right may not be respected by those in power.

Yes the determination comes from man who used God's word to reach such conclusions.

Now I think this is the great extreme danger that the secularists represent. As they continue to increase in power and influence so goes the rights of man for they will determine our rights for us.

Thank God (no pun intended) that America still has a majority that understands this.

This is another reason I worry about the direction of Europe. From what I understand its already happening as many Europeans have already lost certain property rights. Now in France the right to freedom of expression and religious expression has been damaged - many in Europe have lost their right to free speech (especially in France and Germany) just because its unpopular speech. I don't agree with what that rightwing French politician said about the Nazis but he was actually charged with a crime for his comments. To an American this is unbelievable - Nazis here can march, protest, wear such symbols, fly such flags and enjoy the same 1st amendment rights as all other citizens. We know the dangers of preventing speech and thus our nazis are marginalized and have absolutely no influence.

Do you see the dangers now in not recognizing that rights are divinely given?

I see no point in perpetuating a lie. Rights are never divinely given. They are always given by a man. Usually that man claims (and he may even believe it) they are divinely given to make himself more credible.

Human beings have moral value because they have the ability to discern moral value itself.

"I see no point in perpetuating a lie. Rights are never divinely given. They are always given by a man. Usually that man claims (and he may even believe it) they are divinely given to make himself more credible. "

Then you have no rights. You can argue until you are blue in the face that you do but those who are more powerful than you will disagree and do whatever they want - whatever serves their interests. You are forced to live under might makes right not right makes might.

Would you say that your belief on this matter is common or held by a majority in Europe?

"Human beings have moral value because they have the ability to discern moral value itself."

What is moral value? What you are describing must always be subjective if it does not have a divine source. Who are you to say that the nazi's moral values are wrong if you dont base those values on God's values?

Who are you to say your values are better than the nazis values when both of you claim those values come from providence?

Its always going to be one man's word against another man's word. We don't have to cloud the issue by having claims of God confuse things.

"Its always going to be one man's word against another man's word. We don't have to cloud the issue by having claims of God confuse things."

Ahhhhhhh - so you must then acknowledge that maybe Hitter's values were right? For who are you, just one man, to judge his values wrong?

I'm sorry but your reasoning leaves NO other option!

"And the reason I think you are no better than Iranian mullahs is that if God told you "All men are not equal, White Christians are superior and should impose their form of government on heathens and infidels" then you would do it and think it righteous."

That argument only holds if there is no God and the Bible isnt His word. Since my Bible does not make those claims then there is no point in making that comparison.

Its moral equivalence. The point is, your morals are completely arbitrary. If the Bible said kill thy neighbour, you would gleefully do it.

I prefer to believe that since all moral judgement come from men, therefore that when one tries to define morality, it must come from men. Usually (but not always) it must be defined by the majority of men.

Better this than some God-derived thing. If God and Providence is justification enough, then guess what? Iran, Nazi Germany, the Crusader states and British America were all legitimate forms of government.

"If the Bible said kill thy neighbour, you would gleefully do it. "

NO the point is that my Bible says the opposite!!!

"Better this than some God-derived thing. If God and Providence is justification enough, then guess what? Iran, Nazi Germany, the Crusader states and British America were all legitimate forms of government."

You got it backwards - Iran, Nazi Germany and British America were legitimatised by men who ignored Gods word. Instead they embraced the ideas of men like you are now proposing. England told its subject (you are a subject not a citizen btw) that one man was given a right by God to rule over them however the justification for this was man-made and not based upon Scripture. Iran bases its laws upon the teachings of Mohammed who couldn't even read or write and who created a cult to increase his power. Hitler determined the law according to his own beliefs. All three systems are rejected by God's word. People familiar with God's word knew that such systems were evil and that is why they judged them and opposed them.

The greatest system ever created in world history was made by men highly familiar with God's law which is why they understood that rights are intrinsic to all humans and that no government or man can be the ultimate sovereign - that there must be a moral superior in which to base legitimacy.

What's amazing is that you fail to grasp that your own views - taken to their conclusion - means that there is no ultimate reason why Hitler was wrong - that no morals are superior - thus you have NO means to judge other moral systems.

America does not obey the scriptures.

I don't see anyone stoning children for cursing their parents, or anyone burning people to the stake, or people killing zoophiles (and the animal)

"NO the point is that my Bible says the opposite!!!"
But its apparent that if your Bible said 'kill thy neighbor' you wouldn't obey it. I think you really don't derive your morals from God. You just think you do, and in fact, you have a big set of implicit morals which you obey regardless of what the Bible says. You've chosen the religion closest to your implicit morals.

"America does not obey the scriptures. "

The declaration and constitution are not anti-biblical.

"I don't see anyone stoning children for cursing their parents, or anyone burning people to the stake, or people killing zoophiles (and the animal) "

Lets not play this game because first Im not sure you have the kind of theological background to make it worthwhile and second I doubt your sincerity.

"You've chosen the religion closest to your implicit morals."

Which Biblical moral is immoral?