Leviticus 20: 24 and 26 (Earth, HaShem, exodus, homosexual, elder)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Pah and Lilithu were discussing "In God we Trust" , and jewscout and Deut were chatting on whether we should eat grasshopper or not.
Shouldn't these two be on separate thread?

pssst --- "In God We Trust" was in the OP.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Canadian started as a God fearing nation, and I was always of the opinion that Washington started America as a liberal free country for every one, theist and non-theist and atheist inclusive. It is with time that the fundamental Christians slowly gained political power, and have infused the religion into the state, violating the separating of church and state as established by the founding fathers of America? This is a sad trend, as religious intolerance will only lead to war and not peace.

Washington?! It was Jefferson and Madison who established America as free for everyone, theist and atheist inclusive. Especially Madison since Jefferson was in France during much of that time. Madison is the most underrated Founding Father imo.

America has always had a strong religious streak. The Puritans controlled New England as a theocracy, and their "new Zion" beliefs were part of the impetus for this thread. Maryland was chartered as a Catholic colony, whereas others were Anglican. Nine out of the 13 colonies had established churches, that is, officially sanctioned denominations that were supported by public tax dollars. It's a mistake to think that we started off completely free and secular and have been going downhill since. The fact is that we've always had both forces struggling against each other and it coulda gone either way in the beginning. It was due to the bold vision and hard work of a few key people at the right place and time that we got seperation of church and state.

Altho, actually, the result of separation of church and state is that we are more religious. Other countries who kept established churches gradually lapsed into religious apathy. Without establishment, churches here had to compete for worshippers and thus got really good a techniques that generate religious sentiment. (free-market economy in action! how American is that?! )

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Is this starting an internal family war within the Christian community?
No place for the atheist to get involved, eh?

No, not a war. Certainly, I don't wish to escalate hostilities, whether it's inter or intra.

Yes, I am suggesting that liberal Christians need to step up. Being the religious freak that I am, I spend a lot of time talking to people of all faiths but mostly Christians since there are more of them than anything else in this country. And the majority of American Christians that I talk to are pro-choice, pro-gender equality, do not have a problem with evolution being taught in schools, etc. They tell me that Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell do not represent them. Yet it's the ones like Fallwell and Robertson who dominate politics in the name of Christianity. And the only public voices that we hear against them are "godless" voices. By "godless" I mean that the response does not rely on religion. (I'm not making a judgment on the person's religious state.) The religious right argues God and morality and the left argues legal rights. They're talking past each other. So yes, I am asking where the Religious Left is politically. Why aren't they doing what pah is doing with the OP? Why aren't they holding the Religious Right accountable to their own religion? People are out there saying and doing hateful things in the name of their religion; why are they allowing it to continue unchallenged?

As for atheists and non-Judeo-Chrisian theists, I think we do have a place to get involved... in dialogue, in good faith, with liberal Judeo-Christians, to show where our goals and ideals are the same. And fighting on the political front as we have been doing. But strategically speaking, I don't think non-believers ought to be quoting the bible at the Religious Right, imo. The reason why is that it invariably will be seen as an attack. It's one thing for a fellow Christian, who is just as invested in the truth of Christianity, to question the interpretations and motives of another Christian; it's another thing for someone from the outside, who is not invested in the truth of Christianity, to be using its scriptures to show that someone is being hypocritical. Whatever the intent, if it is perceived as an attack from the outside, then it's more likely to be perceived as an attack against the religion itself. If it is perceived as an attack against the religion itself, people within the religion will tend more to side with their fellow religionists being attacked. That's my take on it anyway.