dagblog - Comments for "Faith leaders unite on founding values"

Like Martin Luther King Jr.

moat — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 02:45:11 +0000

In reply to Here's another thought: the

Like Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I just want was written down." That those written words went way beyond what the first speakers had in mind is a beautiful thing.

The "originalists" arguments, espousing keeping faith with the intentions of dead people, is completely at odds with those dead people's clearly stated intention to have a polity that was not bound up in that way.

Here's another thought: the

Verified Atheist — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:19:09 +0000

In reply to Whenever I hear a rallying

Here's another thought: the nation was founded on Christian values (Who are we trying to kid by putting "Judeo-" in front of that? I don't think any of the founding fathers were Jewish, but correct me if I'm wrong!) in the same way that they were founded on European values, White values, Male values, etc. That is, the founding fathers were (arguably) Christian, but they deliberately chose not to make that a prerequisite for holding office. Furthermore, they enshrined in the Constitution that you couldn't make that a prerequisite and that the government shouldn't have anything to do with establishing or abolishing religions.

Whenever I hear a rallying

moat — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:13:27 +0000

In reply to Faith leaders unite on founding values

Whenever I hear a rallying call to not "neglect" the values shared by the founders, I think of the shared consensus the founders developed that no one group would be permitted to be an arbiter of what those values were for "we the people". The spirit of that prohibition indicts a group of two hundred people deciding they are cool with each others' expressions of faith but hostile to those outside of their clan.

The whole affair seems like a code for something they dare not talk about. What does fixing the problem they agree exists look like? I don't like being fixed.

The arguments in the

Beetlejuice — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:07:06 +0000

In reply to A couple of thoughts in

The arguments in the Federalist Papers relied on British history, government, common laws and so forth as a foundation for acceptance of the Constitution. We owe the Brits far more than we realize.

So we're a republic based on

Beetlejuice — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 19:02:25 +0000

In reply to Faith leaders unite on founding values

So we're a republic based on judeo-christian values, eh? Can they point to a specific reference in the Constitution where they found that? I'm just getting into the Federalist Papers and so far Hamilton, Jay and Madison are only discussing the trials and tribulations of men, both the good and willing and the unscrupulous, to steer state governments astray for the sake of petty and personal wealth at the expense of the public they serve ... no mention of religion, god or moral values. Interesting too that no constitutional scholar has ever found a reference that the Constitution recognized those values. They always say the Constitution was purposefully made religiously neutral because they knew from experience of that era religiously inspired government was a road to perdition.

I'm sorry Emma, I was in a

erica20 — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:22:58 +0000

In reply to We must have very different

I'm sorry Emma, I was in a mood to be flip. But you are right, attempting to resolve those types of problems does increase intelligence, as far as I know.

We must have very different

EmmaZahn — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:06:32 +0000

In reply to Cognitive dissonance is why

We must have very different notions of what cognitive dissonance means.

To clarify, the IQs to which I refer are those of the founding fathers, not any contemporary groups. They were a remarkably intelligent group of men and of the same generations another remarkable group. And it was not just in Scotland or Britain. The Protestant Reformation made the Bible the killer app for Gutenberg's printing press.

I view this article as

erica20 — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:56:43 +0000

In reply to Faith leaders unite on founding values

I view this article as support for my theory that the religious factions are circling the wagons around Romney: Mormons are Christian enough, and the main thing about Jesus is that he was a capitalist! Anyone who really believes in him would get in there and turn on the trickle-down, full-blast.

Cognitive dissonance is why

erica20 — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:51:34 +0000

In reply to A couple of thoughts in

Cognitive dissonance is why gay Catholics are the smartest of all.

A couple of thoughts in

EmmaZahn — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:04:21 +0000

In reply to A couple of thoughts spring

A couple of thoughts in response:

1. As much of an over generalization as the term Judeo-Christian values itself so what specific values they choose to focus on will be important and revealing. I do hope they remember that the founders were overwhelmingly British and Protestant. As much as so many here wish not, that is an important aspect of the founders values. See British history of the 16th and 17th century for more about that, e.g. the Glorious revolution of 1688 was very much recent history to them. Also, at least two of the colonies were founded by religious sects.

2. Partially answered above. For the record I recently realized that I have a definite antipathy to the Abrahamic religions. They are far too misogynistic and patriarchal for me to find a comfortable niche within them. That said, they still offer a learning path for those of us drawn to the same quest. We just have to learn to separate the spiritual from the cultural.

Best example I can think for me of is from decades ago. After reading the very beautiful chapter 13 from 1st Corinthians, I began chapter 14 and again paused to contemplate verse 10, "There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification." Then continuing on only to be slapped in the face by verse 34, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." So what to think. No voice is without signification except women?

I learned to separate Paul's most excellent writing about personal spiritual things from his church/culture building instructions. The first I enjoy; the latter too often annoys but I understand that he was very much of his time and place. That is a good lesson and not everyone learns it but I think it an awful mistake to just throw out millennia of writing about our struggle to make sense of why we are.

Full disclosure: I have a pet theory that the cognitive dissonance resulting from Protestants' literacy campaigns and vernacular Bibles bumped up the IQs several points beyond what literacy alone would produce Try imagining what it is like to believe that the salvation of your immortal soul is contingent on understanding the Bible. Probably drove more than a few people insane. Much easier to just let someone else tell you what it says.