|
2 members (theophan, 1 invisible),
93
guests, and
17
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,297
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844 |
I think this is the person [ en.wikipedia.org] that we need to send our big message to, and hope that he will back off, so we can restore the freedoms that we need to survive on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 324 |
That if it isn't Catholic it isn't Christian. You were the one who placed Protestants on par with agnostics, and who labeled their belief in God "cynical" (scroll up). That Americans were profoundly religious (albeit in a uniquely American way) is demonstrated by the fact that most households in the colonial and early Republic had but one book, that being the Authorized Edition of the Holy Bible. They read it, they knew it, and they generally took it to heart. But it's not a Catholic Bible, so I guess it doesn't count. With all due respect, StuartK, you argue rather dishonestly. If I stated that most of the founding fathers of the United States were Protestants and agnostics, that is hardly the same thing as putting Protestants on par with agnostics. I think it should be fairly clear to see that the point I was making is that some of our Catholic leaders today, when publicly lamenting the HHS mandate and same-sex marriage and various other hot-button issues of the day, tend to speak as if America was a devout and God-loving nation of Biblical precepts from her foundation right up until the day before yesterday, and that now suddenly, in a way nobody could ever have predicted, we have all at once (with Obama) become secular, libertine, and socially progressive. Now, if you want to say, "We have been, RI, that's exactly the situation; the American populace only embraced worldly secularism just yesterday. Before now we've been Holy Mother America", fine. But don't unjustly twist my words around, particularly after posting a remark that essentially agrees with my observation, just for the sake of...actually I have no idea what. Being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Being disrespectful for the sake of being disprespectful? For goodness' sake. As to the Douay Rheims Bible comment and the Bible-as-fairy tale remark, please don't behave as if both comments were not disappointingly puerile. You both would do better to simply apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Americans...the first Americans...were contracting marriages between men and "two spirit" men until the Europeans came along and put the kaibosh on it. Explains how the former lost the continent and we should emulate the latter in keeping it. The truth doesn't need fairy tales to buttress it. It can stand on it's own. Can't we just say, "yep, same-sex marriage...it was bound to happen in a country based upon the libertine principles of the Enlightenment and now here it is; surprised it took this long to get here." No need to act as if we had been living in the Holy Roman Empire until Obama came along. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
And that references to God in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution....all have no meaning? The mere acknowledgement of the existence of a deity in a document is hardly tantamount to evidence of a Christian nation whose laws and culture is based upon Biblical morality. An Islamic nation or a Jewish nation or even a Freemasonically-inspired nation could all have produced the same text. They were, however, approved by colonies turned states, most of which had state churches and all but one had explicit Christian aims in the founding, to judge from their charters: the founder of the exception, Roger William, was no agnostic, nor was Rhode Island really an exception: it let the colonist decide on their Christianity, but Christianity itself was not in question. The First Amendment didn't change that: in fact, the First Amendment barred the Federal government from disestablishing the state churches of the states.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
That if it isn't Catholic it isn't Christian. You were the one who placed Protestants on par with agnostics, and who labeled their belief in God "cynical" (scroll up). That Americans were profoundly religious (albeit in a uniquely American way) is demonstrated by the fact that most households in the colonial and early Republic had but one book, that being the Authorized Edition of the Holy Bible. They read it, they knew it, and they generally took it to heart. But it's not a Catholic Bible, so I guess it doesn't count. George Washington kissed it, i.e. venerated it, when beginning what is being promoted as the secular system of things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
|
Za myr z'wysot ... Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125 |
With all due respect, StuartK, you argue rather dishonestly. If I stated that most of the founding fathers of the United States were Protestants and agnostics, that is hardly the same thing as putting Protestants on par with agnostics. Roman, Here are your own words: A cynical acknowledgement by America's founding agnostics and Protestants that religion is useful in maintaining good behavior amongst the populace hardly contradicts anything I've pointed out. Note that the parallel you draw between agnostics and Protestants is with no qualification of any kind. Like it or not, that really is "the same thing as putting Protestants on par with agnostics." ... the point I was making is that some of our Catholic leaders today, when publicly lamenting the HHS mandate and same-sex marriage and various other hot-button issues of the day, tend to speak as if America was a devout and God-loving nation of Biblical precepts from her foundation right up until the day before yesterday, and that now suddenly, in a way nobody could ever have predicted, we have all at once (with Obama) become secular, libertine, and socially progressive. First of all, this kind of rhetoric is typical when discussing social issues from a political standpoint. Be that as it may, however, the fact is that millions of Americans only changed their positions on some of these points when the Democratic Party--under Obama's leadership--embraced them. (Let us not forget that it was during the Clinton Administration that DOMA was passed, and that Clinton himself signed it.  ) Now, I will certainly agree with the proposition that social values become political issues only after a gap has appeared between a large number of people's social values and the existing laws. However, it is also true that many more people will come to embrace the new position once it becomes "politically correct." ... As to the Douay Rheims Bible comment and the Bible-as-fairy tale remark, please don't behave as if both comments were not disappointingly puerile. You both would do better to simply apologize. Roman, Paul B was referring to a well-known historical fact about the colonial and early Republic period of American history, which StuartK later stated more explicitly: That Americans were profoundly religious (albeit in a uniquely American way) is demonstrated by the fact that most households in the colonial and early Republic had but one book, that being the Authorized Edition of the Holy Bible. They read it, they knew it, and they generally took it to heart. Now, you might take exception to his somewhat sarcastic remark, "But it's not a Catholic Bible, so I guess it doesn't count," but your posts really did seem to imply that none of that counted for anything. (FWIW, it has been the faith of this country that made it great and kept it strong for many years, and that faith has been found on both sides of the Catholic/Protestant fence. If you want to debate this, let's take it up on a new thread.) Peace, Deacon Richard
|
|
|
|
|