Heavens! I’m so terribly sorry - I’ll stop right away! I certainly wouldn’t want to offend any good Christian folks by living my life.
Esprix
MsRobyn:
Umm… and this has relevance how?
Because not all religious values are being referred to. For example, a religion that preached worship of the earth, and the idea that eating animals was evil, and that families should cosist of at least 12 people in a constant state of orgy would not represent “J-C family values”.
Most muslims value life, and are wonderful people. However, the Q’uran preaches things such as the destruction of Israel, and the killing of non-Muslims. No, most people don’t practice this. However, it’s still an inherent part of fundamentalist Islam. I have never seen an illustrated parallel between this death-to-the-infidels paradigm of Islam in the New Testament.
Ah, the ol’ “I can think of an extreme example in which your rule of thumb doesn’t hold, therefore your rule of thumb is invalid” argument. Please point to where I said, “In absolutely every situation, with no exceptions whatsoever, parents should never seek to separate.”
Yes, you’re a saint. If I had a Mother of the Year award handy, I would give it to you. However, I didn’t say the government should never help people in need. I said that conservatives encourage people to make choices that minimize the need to rely on this help. For example, don’t have sex while still in school. This lowers the chances of becoming a pregnant high school drop-out at age 16.
Apos:
Exactly.
No, the founding fathers themselves were not fleeing religious persecution. However, the phenomenon had occured in much more recent history, such that they were familiar with the concept.
One tenet of Christianity is that you cannot force someone into being a Christian. It must be a voluntary choice. The founding fathers were allowing every citizen the right to make their own choice. That doesn’t mean they wanted people to be non-Christian, only that they recognized the importance of not forcing it down their throats. A parallel can be drawn between the FF’s and their critics, and, say, someone who disapproves of homosexuality but follows the teachings of “hate the sin, love the sinner” and someone who runs around talking about what evil freaks homosexuals are. Don’t be too quick to instill modern-day mentality in the Founding Fathers. They may have been ahead of their time, but not two centuries ahead.
I’m sorry, but the most violent thing I’ve ever seen attributed to Jesus is his flipping over some gambling tables in church. Can you please provide me a reference to something in the NT that preaches the use of violence? Saying, “Remember the Crusades!” doesn’t count. Commiting violence in Jesus’s name isn’t the same as Jesus advocating violence.
Jeff
And Monty, thanks for invite, but I try to avoid the Pit. I prefer to have rational arguments free of name-calling.
Jeff
Esprix, you’re forgiven.
If you don’t mind my saying so. 
Well, Poly, you do fit my personal criteria of “good Christian folk,” so anything you throw my way, I’ll accept. 
Esprix
cough Auto da fe cough
cough Charlemagne’s 'conversion of the Saxons cough
cough Russian pogroms against Jewish villages cough
And did y’all notice this gem:
**
This from the guy who had the nerve to imply that Islam doesn’t value life.
And to answer your question above about the relevance of people not believing in Jesus, it’s very relevant when you consider that NT “family values” are being shoved down our throats. I don’t believe in Jesus and never have. Aside from some mild interest in his philosophy, I really don’t care what he has to say about anything. On the other hand, I care a lot about my freedom to raise my son as I see fit.
Robin
You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of history if you can say with a straight face that the FF listed above were Christians. Making it up does not make it so.
The original assertion by ElJeffe was that the laws of the US are derived from a uniquely Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically the Ten Commandments. This is immediately questionable, since the only commonality is in the prohibitions against killing and stealing (which are state crimes, not federal). ElJeffe’s implication is that JC-based societies are the only ones which prohibit murder and stealing and uses the allegedly greater violence of Islamic society to prove this point. He’s grasping at straws if you ask me.
(This post also included in the accompanying Pit thread)
Conservatives insist that you should not have sex at all until you’re married no mater how thorough you are in eliminating the risks of pregnancy. This is for superstitious reasons, not the pragmatic ones you cite.
Furthermore, the #1 issue for the JCV crowd is stopping abortion. Pro-lifers often use the promise of government handouts as an incentive in persuading pregnant teens to forgo abortion. The main reason I support abortion rights is because outlawing it would cause an explosion in out-of-wedlock births and single mothers.
Oh, for the love of God, people. Why is it that I get blasted for allegedly saying that Islam is bad because some Muslims commit acts of violence (which I didn’t), by the same people who then say that Christianity is bad because some Christians commit acts of violence? None of the above examples have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus as they appear in the NT. They have everything to do with nasty people using religion as an excuse to do some nasty things.
Now, if the NT anywhere advocates violence against innocent people, please let me know, because I’m operating under the assumption that it doesn’t. The Qu’ran, however, has passages that explicitly say to kill non-believers. For eaxmple:
- Surah 9:5
This isn’t a matter of bad people deliberately misinterpreting scripture to fulfill their own ends. This is a matter of a relgious text explicitly saying, “Go out and kill.” Big difference. Now, thankfully, most Muslims aren’t evil violent people. They kinda gloss over the whole killing thing, and focus on the love-thy-neighbor parts.
No, how many people believe in Jesus is not relevant to the question of what “J-C family values” are. Admittedly, the fringe of the religious right is over-zealous in their application of their beliefs - the shoving-down-your-throat bit. But that fire-and-brimstone approach is not shared by the majority, and certainly not inline with what Christianity is supposed to be, from a strictly NT biblical standpoint.
No, that was the implication credited to me by several people who seem to have deliberately misinterpreted what I said. I never said that JC socities are the only ones which prohibit murder. I also never used the greater violence of Islamic societies to prove a point. I used what is stated explicitly in Islamic teachings to prove a point. And it would seem that those grasping at straws would be the people who need to twist my words in order to have some semblance of a valid point.
For many, yes, it is. I could see how someone who believed abortion was murder would rather choose a government handout over an abortion - lesser of two evils, and such.
Jeff
Because it’s a strawman. No one here said Christianity is bad because some Christians commit acts of violence.
If you believe otherwise, well, PPOR.
Unless, of course, that relationship is between two men or two women.
Again, my sincerest apologies for my life. I’ll try to do better next time.
Esprix
The “abstinance only” crowd is on a roll and doing its damnedest to interfere with sensible sex eduaction. Conservatives attack contraceptives not because they don’t think they are effective enough but because they undermine their efforts to frighten young people out of having sex. What’s the difference between morality and superstition? If it causes real harm–like murder–it’s immoral. If not–like premarital sex or homosexuality–it’s superstition.
[QUOTE]
Because it’s a strawman. No one here said Christianity is bad because some Christians commit acts of violence.
[/QUOTE
Three people, in rapid-fire succession, implied that Christianity was flawed based on what select groups of people have done in the past. Judging a religion by the actions of people who misapply the tenets of that religion is foolish. Contrary to what people on here keep trying to say, I have not done that.
Hey, no need to apologize to me, Esprix. I’m not Christian, nor do I have any problem with homosexuals.
I personally think abstinence-only is potentially misguided (though the verdict’s still out on that). That being said, it’s a logical response to the here’s-a-condom-let’s-learn-how-to-give-a-blow-job philosophy at some schools.
Also, while I agree that homosexuality causes no harm, premarital sex - more specifically, irresponsible sex by those too young to handle the consequences - is potentially harmful, and it’s not “superstituous” to discourage it.
Jeff
D’oh! I’ve been struck by the Crappy Editing Demon. My apologies.
Jeff
wow.
it appears that many of the posters are here just to bash Christianity and/or Judeo-Christian values. if that’s what this post is for, let me know and i’ll go type in another forum.
i think ElJeffe has done an admirable job of describing what is meant by “family values.” does anybody disagree with his definition? does anybody disagree with his original assertion that when politicians say “family values” they usually mean “values similar to those traditionally attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic?”
if we’re talking about the influence of Judeo-Christian ethics on American law, i find it hard to believe that anyone could deny the profound influence of New Testament theology on our ethics, and thus on our legal system. it certainly comes down to more than just “thou shalt not murder” and “thou shalt not steal” (which most – but certainly not all – ethical theories espouse). for example, our laws prohibitting adultery and sodomy, and limiting marriage to a single man and woman, are strong evidence of J-C influence (yes, they’re state laws, but we’re talking about the American system of morals here, and not just the federal laws). plus, the fact that the Declaration of Independence and every session of Congress and the Supreme Court open with an invocation to God (as opposed to a prayer to Allah or a Zen koan) certainly seem to be strong indicators of the Christian influence on our government present since its inception.
certainly, there were no Biblical laws on purchasing assault rifles or labelling requirements for hazardous materials shipped by air frieght, but that doesn’t mean that our laws weren’t strongly influenced by J-C ethics. i don’t think anyone is saying we lifted our legal codes directly from the New Testament or the Ten Commandments. we’re just talking about influence here.
and if you’ll re-read ElJeffe’s post, i think you’ll see that he conceded the presence of numerous influences on our morals and legal system.
(emphasis added)
i don’t think the sides on this debate are that far apart, and i definitely don’t think those of you screaming for ElJeffe’s head have much of a leg to stand on. you asked for proof of why “thou shalt not murder” was a Christian ethos, and he supplied Islam as an example of a religion that does not hold that life has the same value. he provided a cite to back up his statement. he never said “Muslims are going to Hell,” or “Muslims are barbarians,” or even “most Muslims don’t think that life has the same value as Christians” (in fact, he said the opposite). he merely pointed out that in the Koran, the lives of non-believers are not given the same value as the lives of Muslims. i think this has bearing on our argument, since we don’t execute non-Americans willy-nilly, and in fact, we hold that it is a self-evident truth “that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” (for our foriegn readers, that’s from the Declaration of Independence).
do i think that Christianity holds all life (and equality) to be more valuable than Islam? i don’t know. frankly, i don’t know enough about Islam to come to a conclusion yet. but that’s why i thought this debate would be useful – for my edification and for the edification of others. and i fully expected a rebuttal from someone citing provisions of the Koran showing they, too, value all human life. instead, this thread appears to have disintegrated into cries of “bigot!” and “evangelical!” and even “Christianity stinks!” what happened to reasoned debate, and allowing the facts speak for themselves?
i hate to sound like a Sunday school teacher, but it seems to me that the hysterics in here are reaching ridiculous proportions. people quickly (and without foundation) accused ElJeffe of endorsing abusive marriages, and condoning abstinence, or (most ridiculous of all) sarcastically apologized for their sexual preferences. people, these are not ElJeffe’s beliefs. they are the “family values” that were originally asked about.
sqweels, i invite you to re-read ElJeffe’s posts, and if you feel it’s appropriate, post a retraction in the Pit.
to sum up this diatribe, i think that our notion of family values is strongly influenced by notions passed down from the J-C ethic, and i think that our laws have been strongly influenced by our notions of family values. anybody care to debate that? or should i just be dismissed as another perpetrator of the Crusades?
Like the profound influence of Romans 13:1-2 on the Declaration of Independence:
Or the influence of Matthew 5:40 on our system of civil law:
I am seeing a lot of argument by assertion–“no one could possibly deny…”–and nothing much in the way of specifics. “Our nation’s system of laws is based in large part on the Ten Commandments”–in a country whose most basical laws are fundamentally opposed to the concept of civil punishments for religious crimes; yet even a cursory reading of the Bible shows that an overwhelmingly important theme of Biblical law and ethics is the importance of worshipping the “true God” and forsaking the worship of “false gods”.
Yes, I know the Declaration of Independence has important references to a Supreme Being. But show where in the Bible, anywhere in the Bible, it says that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. In Biblical political theory, governments derive their power from God and God’s laws. Read what Paul’s epistle to the Romans says about the authority of government. (If Christians were urged to be obedient to the pagan and tyrannical Roman Emperors, how could rebellion against the far milder and avowedly Christian government of Great Britain be justified?) Read the Biblical accounts of how Israel got its laws–Moses wasn’t elected by a majority of registered voters, and the Israelites didn’t convene a constitutional convention to set up a framework for passing legislation. Read the accounts of how Samuel, a prophet of God, chose Saul as King of Israel, then denounced Saul and set up David in his place–no consent of the governed in sight, it was the decree of God that was important.
The government of the United States is profoundly un-Biblical, and has been from the dawn of this country as an independent nation.
MeBuckner:
Damn, you’re good. Not only that, you’re damn good.