The Coming Evangelical Collapse

[FunkyTown]

It's late here so tomorrow I will find the part where he speaks about the religion of the people, but it was before his inauguration and it might take me some time to find it.

Kiwi? I'm not certain if you've watched this or, indeed, any of the films you're referring to. Are you aware this is a poorly edited piece of trash that uses 3 second sound-bytes to try to prove a point? And the second one you posted, where he said that laws can not be made based solely upon religious reasons? That makes sense. As a counterpoint: With a law based solely upon religious law, neither the LDS church in specific nor Christianity in general would have survived.

The single, interesting thing that took place on -any- of those videos was in the first one: Governor Ventura spoke. As one who has a tremendous amount of respect for Governor Ventura, I would have liked to hear more from him specifically - Unedited and untouched - As to how he feels about the government.

[trulykiwi]

Kiwi? I'm not certain if you've watched this or, indeed, any of the films you're referring to. Are you aware this is a poorly edited piece of trash that uses 3 second sound-bytes to try to prove a point? And the second one you posted, where he said that laws can not be made based solely upon religious reasons? That makes sense. As a counterpoint: With a law based solely upon religious law, neither the LDS church in specific nor Christianity in general would have survived.

The single, interesting thing that took place on -any- of those videos was in the first one: Governor Ventura spoke. As one who has a tremendous amount of respect for Governor Ventura, I would have liked to hear more from him specifically - Unedited and untouched - As to how he feels about the government.

Excuses, excuses, oh how patriotic LOL, but I agree about laws based on religious reasons only, but that is another subject.

[Elphaba]

To the credit of my history teachers, when discussing the creation of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, we studied Locke extensively.

Then you should understand how profoundly the founders believed in his Enlightement philosophies, so much so that they used his language in the founding documents, sometimes almost verbatim.

Part of the reason I maintain the Constitution was founded on Christian principles is the belief that the Founding Fathers were inspired of God, as was the Constitution. The fact is that both the Constitution . . . derive their intellectual foundation from the eternal principles of God's kingdom--

How so? What parts of the Constitution are based on eternal principles of God’s kingdom?

You said you had studied Locke. If this is true, you would know how the founders used his philosophies, and his language, to write the Constitution.

In fact, they would have fought against adding “God’s Kingdom” in the Constitution. They were adamant about not referencing religion at all. The document is based on a philosophy that specifically rejects Christianity.

for instance Locke, who was influenced by the political and artistic movement of the Enlightenment- something else we believe was influenced by God).

Where does the Church teach it believes Locke was influenced by God?

In the end, the Constitution is fit only for a society that upholds the morals it was founded upon: today,

What morals?

The Constitution does not include any reference to ‘morals.” The founders deliberately kept religious concepts, including “morals,” out of the Constitution.

we find most of those morals embraced in the Judeo-Christian heritage with many of the same morals reflected in other religious philosophies (freedom of choice, innate rights of man, etc.).

No, ”we” don’t. The Constitution does not address morals.

I keep in mind the foundation of the liberation of our country: the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly references 'Nature's God' and the 'Creator'. Not the Christian God per se, but it recognizes that the rights of man are imputed to him by virtue of God's power.

Yes, it does, but “God” is not the Christian god. Again, the Declaration is based on Locke’s philosophies, so much so that Jefferson sometimes used Locke’s language almost verbatim.

Just a FYI, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and cannot be used to legislate the rights it enumerates. I’m not saying this makes the DoI any less important, just that it is not binding.

In the most real sense- the sense of following a person's inner conscience and the Light of Christ- the Founding Fathers were, by and large, demonstrably Christian.

You can keep torturing this into the box labeled “Christian,“ and it’s never going to fit.

The founders were demonstrably not Christian They did not follow the light of Christ because they didn‘t believe in it. For the most part, they believed in a benevolent Creator that wanted the best for them, but did not involve himself in their every day lives, although their individual beliefs varied on this issue. Nevertheless, they rejected Christianity’s supernatural events, and would be shocked at how people today try to overlay their actual efforts with a transparency of Christianity.

If you’re saying that because God inspired the Constitution, everything they believed was inspired of God as well, I can‘t respond to that, as it cannot be proven one way or the other. What I can say is the revisionist history that they followed the light of Christ negates the actual history of the founders’ deliberate efforts to keep any reference to religion out of the Constitution.

However, I don't see a problem with attributing the founders' efforts to the Christian God; however, if this is true, then He inspired them to reject Him.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

as homos are..

Maya,

In America, "homos" is a slur. I know I have brought this to your attention before, and I know of at least one other person who has as well.

Each time you've responded with how your English is not very good, which made sense before at least two of us explained how it was offensive.

Since this post will have been the third time someone has brought it to your attention, there should be no reason for you to use the slur anymore.

If you need to know what to say in its place, probably "gay," or "gays" is the best, and easiest answer.

Elphaba

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Well, it practically equates "evangelical" with "Christian," and I think there's a difference between the two. There are different types of Christians--you can be "Christian" without being "evangelical," depending on how you define the terms.

I also think that some Christians (like many religionists) have a persecution complex, or an "us versus them" mentality. I see no reason why we can't live in harmony with people of other faiths, or no faith at all.

Finally, I don't think "secular" means "antagonistic to Christianity." It might be thought of as indifferent, or as regarding all religions equally. I believe the Founding Fathers set up a secular government because they wanted people of all faiths to be able to believe and practice as they pleased.

HEP

[prisonchaplain]

HethePrimate, there is no question but that Christianity receives favor in this country, compared with most others. Most of our founders were at least nominally Christian, though no doubt many were of a very vague spirituality. So, in that light, any claims to persecution seem over-drawn.

On the other hand, there are increasing incidences of concern. Demonstrators picketing churches, some interrupting services. Religious organizations being censored, or even taxed, because some of their social pronouncements were said to be political advocacy, not religious. States granting higher education grants, EXCEPT for religious studies students. And, one of the choicest--the Pro-life position is defacto illegimate, because most of its supporters are religious, so their cause is religious, and religion is not to be imposed. All this to say, yeah it does seem more and more than religion is treated as a negative, rather than a nuetral matter. Christopher Hitchens advocated an extreme anti-religious stance--that children under the age of 16 must not be subjected to religious instruction, as such would be abuse, since he alleges that they are too young to understand, and so are, in essence, being treated to brain washing. The signficance of this is that roughly 85% of Christians put their conversion at between the ages of 8 - 14.

Edited March 16, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[FunkyTown]

Excuses, excuses, oh how patriotic LOL, but I agree about laws based on religious reasons only, but that is another subject.

Kiwi? I'm not certain you know this, but when you post links like that and say the things you do, it feels more like we're pulling out of Sanetown, USA and pulling on the the paranoid turnpike to Crazyville.

Obama is not the Antichrist. He does not want to destroy religion. He does not want to destroy America. He is just a man like any other - He is a flawed man and he might make decisions you disagree with. That is expected of any politician.

When you talk about him like he is the Antichrist, you alienate people to your viewpoint. You might want to speak without the histrionics and instead point to specific things he has said, include quotes and then say why you disagree with them. I have, for instance, stated why I disagree with the stimulus package. On the other hand, I agree with most of the other things he has done.

[Maxel]

Elphaba-

I started this thread in response to your most recent post. I think we've hijacked this thread- and others- enough, and that it deserves its own topic. I would love to get your input there.

[WANDERER]

I think that secularisation is a response to what people find within churches...if they find that there is no spiritual sustenance or God is not there perhaps they will find what they are seeking in their souls elsewhere or establish groups elsewhere...or not. Certainly mass evacuation from churches is not a rare historical occurrence...safe prediction and hardly jaw dropping...and often the prelude to a movement of some sort....greater spirituality for some even.

The end of the evangelical movement may be the start of something else...certainly evangelical pentecostal churches have a great deal of flexibility within them to change and grow in shape...perhaps because one church and statement of belief is not the limitation...and there's probably one two streets away from the one you attend if limits to spiritual growth look nigh.

I have come across groups of evangelical women who think a head covering and changing the way they dress to simple, uniform and reverent is the way to go....a little out there...but whatever floats their boat.

It may not be the evangelical you know that will be oncoming...kind of makes you hanker for the ones you have to deal with already...or not : )