Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	We are not governed by the Declaration.  Its purpose was to "dissolve
the political bands," not to set up a religious nation.  Its authority was
based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the
concept of rule by divine authority.  It deals with laws, taxation,
representation, war, immigrattion, and so on, never discussing religion at
all.

	References to "Nature's God,""Creator," and "Divine Providence" in
the Declaration do not endorse Christianity.  Thomas Jefferson, its author,
was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

	The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled
in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom.  Fewer than half of the 102
Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom.  The
secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half
later.

	Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted
those of the "wrong" faith.  The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted
no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the
first government in history to separate church and state.

    In recent years I've most often heard the US called a Christian nation
    by detractors of either the US, Christianity, or both. Occasionally
    someone on the right will make the claim in order to make the "majority
    rules" argument. But most Christians I know do not believe that the
    US is a Christian nation. It is a nation with lots of Christians and
    those who share some Christian ideals but it can't be considered a
    Christian nation. Too many things incompatible with Christianity are
    part of the culture and the law for that to be the case.

    			Alfred

    
    
    
     America is a melting pot of many different religions. I belief those
    that still hold Christ as the center of their religous beliefs are in
    the majority..
    
    David

re Note 591.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> The presidential
> oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does *not*
> contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a Bible
> (Art. II, Sec 1).  

        This was recently topical: I heard that the phrase "so help
        me God" was added by Washington, and by tradition has been
        appended ever since.

> 	In 1979 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring "the government
> of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
> This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and
> approved by the Senate under John Adams.

        I didn't realize that Adams and Washington had been so active
        so recently. :-}

        Bob

    Why is this question significant?

    It's ambiguous enough to be answered with answers to other questions:

    	What religion is established by the Constitution?

    	What religious philosophy formed the intellect of the Founders?

    	What religious beliefs are shared by a majority of Americans?

    	What are the consequences of there being a majority of Americans
    	share religious beliefs on those who don't share those beliefs?

    
Re: .5  Oops!!  That date should be 1797.  My typo.

Richard

    My two cents worth...
    
    I most definitely do not consider America or any other nation
    Christian. Nations aren't Christian.  It's such an individual choice. 
    I really don't like the expression I guess.
    
    Now does America have Christian values?  I believe that many of our
    forefathers were shaped (see 545.22 to references to quotes from
    Washington and Lincoln) by their belief in God.  But it isn't clear to
    me if they were Christians in the true sense of the word (or maybe
    should that be The Word.)
    
    Today...I would say if anything we are a nation in communion with
    Satan.  Most peoples' lives are ran by their selfish desires.  We are a
    nation in love with money, power, and self.  And we are a nation that
    is slowly but steadily trampling on the truths in the Word of God.  I
    also think we're a nation about to face God's judgment. I don't look
    forward to it.  But I know that God will give me the grace to go
    through it as I need it.
    
    Jill

More excerpts from pamphlet, source of .0, .1, .2

	America is one nation under a Constitution.  Although the Constitution
sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the
Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights.  On
constitutional matters we do not have majority rule.  When the majority in
certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal.
The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as
race, gender, or religion.

What about "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust?"

	The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance
until 1954, when Congress (during the McCarthy era) inserted them.  Likewise,
"In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956.  It appeared
on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your
Business."  The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin,
and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum - Of Many, One - celebrating
plurality.

Isn't American law based on the Ten Commandments?

	Not at all!  The first four Commandments are religious edicts having
nothing to do with law or ethical behavior.  Only three (homocide, theft,
and perjury) are relevant to American law, and have existed in cultures
long before Moses.  If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting,"
free enterprise would collapse!

>If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting,"
>free enterprise would collapse!

    No, I don't think so. I think there is a difference between wanting
    my neighbors property and wanting my own like his. The American free
    enterprise is based on expanding the "property" available to people.
    It is socialism, forcing people to give up what they have to the group,
    that would collapse if the commandment against "coveting" were honored.

    			Alfred

    .12
    
    I know what you're saying, Alfred.  But I think the commandment
    could also be understood to apply to the consumer goods which we
    as Americans have become accustomed to readily possessing, possibly
    at the expense of exploiting natural resources and our cohabitants,
    I might add.
    
    Richard

    re .12
    
    > ... forcing people to give up what they have for the group...
    
    I thought this was how monastic communities were run.  You know, vow's
    of poverty, communal living and all that.  
    
    To be covetous doesn't necessarily mean you wish to take your neighbor's 
    posessions and make them your own, it means more to be inordinately 
    desirous of wealth or material posessions... more analogous to greed 
    than theft.
    
    Eric

    Does God care more about America as a nation than He does, say, Saudi
    Arabia?  For that matter does God care about nationalism at all.
    
    Eric

    RE: .13 I think that the commandment can be understood to apply to
    consumer goods as well. However, I believe that one has to take wanting
    those goods to an extreme, ie greed, for it to apply. I do not believe
    that the American system works well with greed. Natural, reasonable
    desire yes. Greed no.

    			Alfred

>    > ... forcing people to give up what they have for the group...
>    
>    I thought this was how monastic communities were run.  You know, vow's
>    of poverty, communal living and all that.  

    The operative word in my sentence, quoted above, is "forcing." That the
    monastic life is communist (in the pure sense of the word) is
    indisputable. However, and this is important, the monastic life is also
    voluntary. One is free to accept it or leave it. Becoming a member of
    a voluntary community is far different then a government imposed
    socialistic system on a nation. I do not believe that God calls
    everyone to the monastic life. Though it is clearly a beautiful thing
    for those who are called to it.


    			Alfred

    re .17
    
    Good points, Alfred.  
    
    Thanks...

    RE:  .15
    
    > Does God care more about America as a nation than He does, say, Saudi
        Arabia?  For that matter does God care about nationalism at all.
    
    Good question.  I think the answer is yes.  Remember God decided to
    establish Israel as a nation.  He assigned His angels to do battle
    with the demons based on kingdoms.  For example in Daniel 9, Michael
    the Archangel has to go help an angel assigned over Persia because he's
    been resisted by the demon assigned to Persia and is not strong enough
    to defeat him on his own.  The Bible talks about kingdoms rising and
    falling according to God's will.  That He moves the hearts of kings
    so that they fall into His will.
    
    Jill

re Note 591.19 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     The Bible talks about kingdoms rising and
>     falling according to God's will.  That He moves the hearts of kings
>     so that they fall into His will.
  
        A typical modern nation and a typical kingdom of Biblical
        times differ greatly in scale.

        Bob

    
    What Bob?  Are you afraid God can't keep up with the changes?  The
    point is that each kingdom or nation has an ultimate leader.  God
    uses them in His plan.
    
    Jill

re Note 591.21 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     What Bob?  Are you afraid God can't keep up with the changes?  The
>     point is that each kingdom or nation has an ultimate leader.  God
>     uses them in His plan.
  
        Absolutely not.   The point is that the term "kingdom" in the
        Bible, as used by people in the day the Bible was written,
        would have very different meaning and connotation from what
        we mean by "nation."

        The point isn't that "God can't keep up with the changes." 
        The question is whether God intended the change you made in
        your reading (reading "kingdom" to apply to "nation").

        Bob

    No nation and kingdom are not the same.  But it's the only reference
    I could think of without my Bible.  Look in any concordance and you
    will see that nation is most certainly in there.
    
    Here's a starter for you...Psalm 22:28.
    
    Jill

    If God judges nations, then how does this square with a personal
    relationship with god?  If God causes one nation to rise triumphantly
    against another isn't he causing harm to the righteous as well as the
    unrighteous?  Is our quest for the blessings of God all for naught if
    we live in a nation that God dislikes?

    And what of this idea that God goes around moving the heart of one
    king to war against another king?  Are all the world's leaders just
    pawns in a game?  What about free will?  

    Jesus seemed to go out of his way to show that the New Covenant was for
    people of all nations.  He explicitly or implicitly down-played
    nationalism.  The Old Covenant was that people were blessed by God as a
    group... a national or racial relationship with God.  The New Covenant
    is that people can have a personal relationship with God.  Or so it
    seems to me, anyway.

    Nah, I don't think God give a wit about nationalism.  
    
    
    Eric

    
    God judges the unrighteous and rescues the righteous.
    
    It's not that God puts hate in any one's heart, but he allows their
    heart to be hardened by their own free will and doesn't intervene.
    The world's leaders only have the control that God allows them.
    
    Where did you get this concept of national relationship with God?  That
    would mean that if one person went to heaven, say Moses, then all the
    Israelites had to.  I don't believe the Bible backs that up.  There
    were all kinds of people in the old testament who were condemned.
    
    Jill

    First, from the linguistic point of view:
    
    As a Jew with a passing acquaintance with Hebrew, I find this to be a
    rather strange (strained?) discussion, based as it is on the English
    word nation.  Remember that the words you are reading do not have
    exactly the same meaning as the words in the original Hebrew, Aramaic,
    or Greek.  
    
    One of our readers with more Hebrew can surely amplify or correct me,
    but I believe that in "the Old Testament", the English word nation is
    usually based on the Hebrew word "ahm" which actually means people (in
    the sense of ethnic group or tribe).  
    
    Other than several empires, most notably including Rome, the Middle
    East and Europe was composed of many different, self-ruling ethnic
    groups or tribes.
    
    As several others have pointed out, the contemporary nation state is a
    very recent invention.  Further, the concept of a nation state as
    totally separate from ethnic identity exists fully only in a few
    nations including the USA.  Witness the ethnic revivals in so many
    countries, and you see that this is so.
    
    I think this string's question needs more refinement.  Does the
    question refer to today's modern nation state?  Or does it refer to a
    people or ethnic group as the original texts more closely intend?
    
    Second, from the philosophical point of view:
    
    If the Holy One is behind all things in the world, then is not the Holy
    One behind our nations and national leaders too?  Our leaders are human
    like everyone else, and subject to divine judgement.  
    
    What's interesting here is to ask if the Holy One is behind our larger
    human trends, the urges and changes that underlie the overt political
    changes.  For example, witness the rise of feminism in the US, the rise
    of democracy in Eastern Europe, shifts in voting trends, even
    somethings as complex as the economy.  What is the Holy One's role in
    all this?
    
    L
    

re Note 591.26 by TNPUBS::STEINHART:

>     What's interesting here is to ask if the Holy One is behind our larger
>     human trends, the urges and changes that underlie the overt political
>     changes.  For example, witness the rise of feminism in the US, the rise
>     of democracy in Eastern Europe, shifts in voting trends, even
>     somethings as complex as the economy.  What is the Holy One's role in
>     all this?
  
        Now there's a notion you don't often see offered these days: 
        the possibility that God is behind the major changes that we
        see in the world around us, and that those changes are
        therefore "good"!

        Bob

    Wasn't it the view of the biblical prophets that God was involved in
    the history of Israel?  Wasn't the Babylonian exile, for example,
    considered a punishment from God?
    
    -- Mike

    How would Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John
    Adams, and Thomas Paine respond to the original question.  Is the
    United States a Christian Nation?

    .28
    
    As an after-the-fact position, yes they did.  In order to justify the
    continuation of the land-based religion while in exile, it was
    necessary to shift from henotheism to the concept of Yahweh as the
    universal deity.  That meant that they could instruct that Yahweh used
    Marduk to punish Judah for abandoning the covenent.
    
    Daniel

Both God and Satan are very active causing changes in
the world.

Collis

Note 591.26

>    I think this string's question needs more refinement.

Yeah, it probably does.  I just gave the string the same title as the
pamphlet from which several entries including .0 came.

Peace,
Richard

    
    How would the people who were here before us respond to the question, I
    wonder? ("Us" meaning the conquering Europeans.)
    
    Dorian

    Ask the Huron (supported by the French and part of the missionary
    efforts of the French Jesuits).  They were slaughtered by the Iroquois
    who were armed by the British.

    Ask the subject peoples of the Aztec Empire. They were ritually
    sacrificed by the tens and hundreds of thousands each year to the Aztec
    gods.  The great masses of native American people in Mexico quickly
    embraced Christianity.

    RE: .34
    
    The embracing by the native Americans in Mexico was strongly influenced
    by the swords and guns that the Spanish used.
    
    Check your history.
    
    Marc H.

    .35
    
    Let's not forget the imported diseases against which native Americans
    had no immunity.
    
    Richard
    

Pat,

<<    gods.  The great masses of native American people in Mexico quickly
<<    embraced Christianity.


Having read quite a bit about Mayan history and actually attending a 
2 day workshop with a renowned well-educationed (both formally and 
traditionally) Mayan 'record keeper', I think you have the facts 
confused on this.

Ro

    Ro,
    
    I do not have my facts confused.  I believe you are.
    
    First of all, read what I wrote: Mexico was under the dominion of the
    _Aztecs_ at the start of the 16th century.  Cortez conquered the
    Aztecs, not the Mayans. The anthropology of the Aztecs is known because
    of written accounts of eye witnesses at the time.
                                                     
    Secondly, the Mayans were in decline since the 11th century and were a
    lost civilization by the time of European arrival in the Yucatan. The
    reasons for the decline of the Mayans are speculative but they probably
    were subjugated and their civilization destroyed by other native
    American peoples.  Ask your "renowned well-educationed (both formally
    and  traditionally) Mayan 'record keeper'" about it.

I saw the special exhibit on the Aztecs at the Denver Museum of Natural
History last October.

The Aztecs did have a grizzly, fatalistic religion.  Human sacrifices
were required, they believed, in order for the sun to rise each day.

Disease brought by Cortez and his crew was a powerful factor in the conquest
of the Aztecs.

Richard

>Disease brought by Cortez and his crew was a powerful factor in the conquest
>of the Aztecs.

	Probably true. But there was no way that Cortez could have left those
	diseases home. And of course sooner or later the new and old worlds
	would have met. The later it happened, I believe, the more diseases
	that the old world had no immunity there would have been. I think that
	laying down a guilt trip over it is neither fair nor reasonable.
	
			Alfred

My bringing up the part about disease was not intended to induce guilt, but
rather to dispell the notion that a superior faith and heroic efforts alone
were enough to conquer the native American people.

Peace,
Richard

    That superior arms and numbers of men were "enough to conquer the
    native American people" was never in dispute.
    
    I took issue with the implicit assertion of Dorian Brooks in .33 that a
    peaceful and homogeneous native American culture was destroyed by a
    warrior race from the Eastern Hemishpere.
    
    Unlike our own century, genocide wasn't the aim, it was exploitation.
    It was only the so-called advanced civilizations of pre-Columbian
    America that practiced slavery.

.42
    
>    I took issue with the implicit assertion of Dorian Brooks in .33 that a
>    peaceful and homogeneous native American culture was destroyed by a
>    warrior race from the Eastern Hemishpere.
    
.33
    
>    How would the people who were here before us respond to the question, I
>    wonder? ("Us" meaning the conquering Europeans.)


That's a bit of a leap, isn't it? I was merely asking how the people
(Native Americans, and I'm pretty sure they weren't Christians) who were
here before us (conquering Europeans), would respond to the question, Is
America a Christian nation? 

Dorian

Re  .34 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY

>    Ask the Huron (supported by the French and part of the missionary
>    efforts of the French Jesuits).  They were slaughtered by the Iroquois
>    who were armed by the British.
>
>    Ask the subject peoples of the Aztec Empire. They were ritually
>    sacrificed by the tens and hundreds of thousands each year to the Aztec
>    gods.  The great masses of native American people in Mexico quickly
>    embraced Christianity.

I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet.  The Huron and the Iriquois 
were warring tribes caught up in the battle between the French and British
for the North American territories.  Prior to the arrival of the Europeans,
there was a power balance between the tribes.  Each conducted raiding parties
against the other, but for the most part they were well established on their
own lands.  200 years after the Europeans came, they both found themselves on
reservations.

As for the Aztecs, the great numbers of sacrificed victims reported were due
more to Spanish fancy than anything based in reality.  What sacrifices 
did occur, if any, were in the capital city, Tenochtitlan, in the temple
complex.  There are good arguments, also, that the Aztec descriptions of
ritual sacrifice were more symbolic of other happenings.  In any case, the
sacrifices, if they occurred at all, were carried out in the main temple, 
and were not in the tens of thousands as reported above.

Europeans have always tended to initially distort and exaggerate reports of
savage behavior by subjugated peoples.  It makes the job of conquering them
easier, I guess.  My guess is that in the case of the Aztecs, the Spanish
either witnessed human sacrifice in the temple, or read Aztec reports of such,
and started the propaganda mills rolling.  They certainly had good experience
at this.  Just witness the propaganda in Spain at that time directed against
the Jews, such as reports of ritual sacrifice/eating of babies, non-Jews, etc.

/Mike

    Well, the direct answer to the question, if asked of native American
    people, would be that the Europeans are "just like us", namely namely
    warlike and fragmented along "tribal" or national groups, except they
    have horses, superior weapons, and better resistance to disease.
    
    The paradox of history that the followers of religions who teach peace
    and practice war exists independently of the conflict between native
    American people and Eurpopeans in the 16th century.  For Christianity,
    it commenced with Constantine centuries before Columbus.
    
    If sacrifices did not occur in the tens of thousands by the Aztec
    hierarchy of the people they conquered, that's news to me.  What is
    your source for this belief?  How many human sacrfices should be
    tolerated before we experience horror?
                               

Pat (.38),

The Mayan scholar I was refering to was Hunbatz Men.  I'll include an 
excerpt where he explains the story from the Mayan experience of 
the history of that period.  You can believe it or not.  Having met 
the man in person, I believe him to be a very holy person who was 
speaking his truth.


From: "Profiles In Wisdom", by Steven McFadden

Chapter 14 - Reconsecrating the Earth - Hunbatz Men

From p.227-228

Beginnings of the Rainbow Nation

The indigenous people of the America say they have known for a long 
time that there were people in all Four Directions, and that many 
Indian people have visited other places to study and exchange culture. 
The native culture of the Americas, though, began to change 
drastically with the coming of Columbus, who proved to be the first of 
many brutal men as he senselessly murdered many hundreds of peaceful 
Indians on his voyages of discovery and exploitation.

In the South, the genocide of indigenous people in Mexico began in 
earnest when Hernando Cortez arrived in Veracruz, Mexico, on Good 
Friday in 1519 with a Roman Catholic priest at his side.  The 
indigenous people knew that someone like Cortez would come, and thanks 
to their calendars they knew exactly when - to the day.  They had, in 
fact, sent scouts to Veracruz to greet Cortez, for they hoped he would 
be the return of the great spiritual messenger, Quetzalcoatl, not the 
bringer of sorrows.

The Aztec emperor Montezuma II felt his power was threatened.  He was 
frightened by omens and the legend that prophesied the return of the 
Quetzalcoatl from the East.  He did everything short of violence to 
prevent Cortez from advancing inland.  But Cortez did advance, and the 
rest of the story is one of sorrow, bloodshed, and disease as the 
native people were systematically killed or enslaved.  "The problem is 
that when the Spanish came to visit they did not respect anything that 
was already here," Hunbatz says.  "The native people could have built 
more weapons when they were aware that the white men were coming, but 
the elders knew this was not the path of wisdom.  They took another 
approach."

According to the Mayan calendars, just as Cortez was stepping ashore, a 
long cycle of thirteen heavens was coming to an end.  For the Maya, it 
was the beginning of a dark cycle of pain, suffering, sadness, and 
death - the entrance of the reign of Xibalba, the world of the Nine 
Lords of Darkness, the Nine Bolontikus, the Nine Hells.  Though in 
many respects the time of the Nine Hells has been a time of great 
darkness, the Maya also saw it as a time to start cross-fertilization 
among the seeds of the Four Directions and the races of the planet.  
This difficult task they saw as the beginning of a new nation of 
multicolored beings.  The seeds of the Four Directions would be a 
mixing together to create the first Rainbow People.

Prior to the arrival of the Spanish, the Maya and many other Native 
American groups entrusted certain families with sacred information and 
the responsibility to keep it secret, so it could not be destroyed or 
abused.  Guidance to take this action came from a confederation of 
Native American nations, a council of elders that, Hunbatz says, had 
met for thousands of years before the Europeans came.  The council is 
made up of representatives from many of the Indian nations from 
Nicaragua north to the Arctic Circle.  It continues to meet to this 
day.  From dreams, visions, and prophecies, the elders of the council 
had become aware that the newcomers would try to change their 
spiritual beliefs.  So they kept the most profound parts of their 
religion and science in their hearts, and did not speak about them.

Over five hundred years ago, Hunbatz's family was entrusted with 
safekeeping part of this wisdom tradition.  He is the comtemporary 
holder of the lineage, although now, because it is time, he has begun 
to share the secrets.  "The eyes of modern civilization see only a 
short span of time," he says.  "To the European-American culture, 
five hundred years seems to be a lot of time.  But five hundred years 
is nothing in the eyes of the Maya."

    Quite a bit to disagree with...
    
    The goal of Cortez was exploitation, not genocide.  Cortez was only
    interested in killing those who opposed him.  The Aztecs of
    Tenochtitlan opposed him.  The great masses of non-Aztec people of
    Mexico didn't welcome Cortez but didn't regret the elimination of Aztec
    power either.
    
    Call me culturally incorrect, but the prospect of having people line up
    in chains to have their hearts ripped out beating to honor the sun god
    is not appealing.
    
    The Mayan civilization in 1519 had been subjugated for centuries
    because they were unable to defend themselves militarily from other
    native American people.  There was no Mayan civilization left for
    Cortez to conquer.
    
    The native American people would say that Cortez was "just like us":
    brutal and warlike.
    
    One hundred years later under Cromwell, my own ancestors were enslaved
    and starved, and Ireland didn't even have gold.  Like your Mayan friend,
    the Irish don't forget either.
                     

    I recently read a anthropological monograph about the United States. 
    It was written in typical anthropological terms without ever actually
    mentioning the fact that it was supposed to be about modern U.S.
    culture.
    
    We came out, in the end, sounding pretty weird.
    
    I'll admit that I get pretty squeemish over descriptions of Aztec
    sacrifice rituals.  On the other hand, not all civilizations regard
    life and the life cycle in the same way.  The Roman circus' that get
    our modern sensibilities outraged were, at their conception at least,
    deeply religious in signifigance.
    
    Daniel

    At least no one is writing a note here "Was Ancient Rome a Christian
    nation?"
    
    Ancient Rome was faithful to the imperial dogma of disrespect for human
    life and valuing wealth and power.

    Ancient Rome and the USA today seem to share a lot of similarities.
    
    Marc H.

Are Christians called to make America a Christian nation?

    RE: .51
    
    Interesting question. First off, you mean USA not America?
    Next, I would say yes....in the sense that the role of every Christian
    should be to spread the "good news". Now, the method on how to make the
    USA a Christian Nation is up for discussion.
    
    Marc H.

re: Note 591.47 by "Patrick Sweeney in New York" 

>    The native American people would say that Cortez was "just like us":
>    brutal and warlike.
    
So you assert, but I would prefer to hear some native Americans answer this on 
their own.

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .53
    
    Good Point Jim. The Native American's are just as much individuals
    as any other ethnic group. Many different types of people within
    the overall label of native people.
    
    Marc H.

    
    		I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why we would
    emphasize our nation as Christian.  I feel that individual people 
    are more important and if all the people were Christian then the 
    Nation would naturally follow.  I guess my perspective is just
    different.
    
    
    Dave

    An interesting view of epistemology that one can't believe the
    archaeological and historical evidence that the Aztecs were brutal and
    warlike until one physically encounters an Aztec.  The thread of whole
    note assumes the such generalizations can and ought to be made.  I
    didn't start it.

    So how then could the Aztecs know of Christianity until they
    encountered Jesus Christ physically?

re: Note 591.56 by "Patrick Sweeney in New York" 

>    An interesting view of epistemology ...

This is a response to what note, Patrick?

Thanks,

Jim

From what I observed at the Aztec exhibit in Denver, the Aztecs were
were indeed warlike and brutal, at least, by my standards.

Some of their customs, not even mentioned here yet, are too gruesome
to detail.

It is also true that Cortez was mainly interested in exploitation; hardly
the noblest of motivations.  The possibility of subjugating a foreign
people, while perhaps not foremost in Cortez' mind, seems to have presented
little problem of conscience for him either.

Traditionally, little respect has been demonstrated towards the sovereignty
of any native Americans, whether their customs were benign or not.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: 3.113
> I am, however, frightened by what is my
>perception of the increasing influence of religion in this country. I am not 
>afraid of religion per se, what worries me is the attempt to pass religious 
>morals into law.

    	Interesting how things look different to different people. What
    scares me is the DEcreasing influence of religion in the US. I'm not 
    afraid of non religious ideas per se, what worries me is the attempt
    to limit the rights and practices of religious people.

    			Alfred

    I think what Steve is afraid of is one branch of religion 
    influencing the government and laws of this country.

    Alfred, I believe you're afraid of religions not being
    tolerated here.  (This brings Waco to mind)

    I'm scared of either or both happening  :-(

    Tom

    RE: .60
    
    Ditto.
    
    /Greg
    

I certainly hope that we can all influence the government!
After all, it's our government.

It appears to me that those who are against the political
activation of the religious right in effect end up saying
that individuals can push for what they want (in terms of
legislation) *unless* they believe that God wants us to do
it.  In that case, they should be quiet.  I've rarely heard
complaints about the non-religious push for (or against) 
particular programs/laws.

Collis

    "Influencing".  Bad choice of word.  "Controlling" or
    "disproportionately influencing" is really what I meant.
    Churches, corporations, other groups all have "interests".
    It's when their influence is grossly disproportionate that
    it scares me.

    Most of the time "religious right" folk push for things 
    that can be perceived as trying to influence the beliefs 
    of those in society.

    For example: public school prayer.  I see this as an attempt to
    influence the beliefs of school children.  I don't want my 
    children to be *taught* religion *by* the schools.  Public
    prayers do just that.

    War, money and criminal justice are open to debate.  Many Quakers
    believe that God wants them to stop war.  I see nothing wrong 
    with that, which is not to say I always agree.  But government
    should leave my soul and my children's soul out their agenda.

    Tom

re: .59
I know that this is the perception of Christians (with some justification), which
was why I emphasized that it was my perception. My view may be colored by my
location (Colorado Springs), which seems to have become a center for outspoken
evangelical organizations over the last decade or so.

re: .60
I agree. I am afraid of having someone elses view of morality legislated. The 
various religions have enough trouble agreeing among themselves on moral law. I
would be equally upset to see religions persecuted, as it is the same side of the
same coin.

re: .62
I agree that we should (and must) be able to influence the government. However,
this country is not based on 'majority rules'. I think it is the thought of the
majority being able to force it's views upon a minority, when the minority is
doing no harm to anyone else (excepting someone's outrage), that scares me the 
most.

Collis, let me ask you a question. If you were in complete charge for a day, 
would you take God's laws and turn them into enforcable statutes? Even if the
law only made sense from a Christian perspective (ie. shut down all business on
Sunday in order to keep the Sabbath holy)?

Steve

  >Collis, let me ask you a question. If you were in complete charge for a day, 
  >would you take God's laws and turn them into enforcable statutes? Even if the
  >law only made sense from a Christian perspective (ie. shut down all business on
  >Sunday in order to keep the Sabbath holy)?

Nope.  Neither would the vast majority of Evangelicals.

Now those Fundamentalists, on the other hand...  :-)

Collis

It is interesting that people believe that God (who
instituted government according to His Word) and those
who follow Him should not have a say in what government
chooses to do.

Is it truly the responsibility of government (schools)
to teach amorally about sex (since schools obviously
shouldn't teach morals - should they?)  Or perhaps the
schools should teach sex *and* morals.  If so, what
morals should they teach?

Of course, the point is somewhat mute.  Schools (i.e.
teachers) teach morals every day whether they like it
or not.  The real dispute is *what* morals will be
taught - and whether the morals will be explicitly or
implicitly taught.

Kids will learn about sex at some point.  The real question
is whether kids will learn from their parents, from their
churches, from their peers, from schools, from books, or
from some other source.  Another question is when will
the kids learn.  And, of course, the moral view is sex
is a *critical* component.

God has given the *family* the responsibility for teaching
about Him and moral issues.  We, as a nation, seem to think
that since schools are around that we should have them take
over the roles assigned the family (such as, in my opinion,
sex education) because many parents do a bad job.  Personally,
I think we'd be much better off *helping* and *encouraging*
PARENTS to take their assigned role and teach their kids
rather than having amoral (or often immoral) sex taught in
a school environment.

I also think that this is a reasonable viewpoint even if you
don't believe in God.  The issue is not fundamentally a
religious issue since many people would (and do) believe the
same thing who have no or little belief in God.  The fact
that God (through His Word) supports this viewpoint only
adds to the cause, in my opinion.  However, others like to
claim that those who rely on the Bible or God are "radicals"
or "fundamentalists" whose goal is to trample the rights of
others.  The media (which is 90% liberal according to their
own surveys) is usually the source (or proliferator) of these
attitudes which are usually overblown and invariable negative
of those who follow the prophets.

Collis

re Note 591.66 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> We, as a nation, seem to think
> that since schools are around that we should have them take
> over the roles assigned the family (such as, in my opinion,
> sex education) because many parents do a bad job.  Personally,
> I think we'd be much better off *helping* and *encouraging*
> PARENTS to take their assigned role and teach their kids
> rather than having amoral (or often immoral) sex taught in
> a school environment.
  
        I would agree -- come up with a credible and workable program
        to do so that our secular government can legally implement
        and I'd be willing to support it.

        Bob

>It is interesting that people believe that God (who
>instituted government according to His Word) and those
>who follow Him should not have a say in what government
>chooses to do.

    If you're talking about me you've got the wrong boy :-)

    What the government *does* and what beliefs it pushes on
    its people are two different things.

    Sex education:  The problem the government is addressing 
    here is teenage pregnancy and AIDS.  On one level it is a social
    problem and government should be concerned about social
    problems.  If parents *were*, infact, teaching their children
    about sex the whole question would be moot.

    I believe that most teachers wish the whole sex education
    issue would just go away so they could get back to Algebra
    or Chemistry and leave the morals to the churches and parents.

    Tom

Sex education was an issue long before AIDS.

Again, teachers teach morals whether they want to or
not - a fact that many wish to either deny or
minimize.

The real issue is not whether to teach morals; the
issue is *what* morals to teach and *how* to teach
them (implicitly or explicitly being part of the how).

Collis

    Okay, let's talk about teachers teaching morals to their students.
    
    I believe that the U.S. government's support for the Contras in
    Nicaragua was immoral.  Should teachers teach that it was immoral, that
    it was moral, or should they encourage students to think for themselves
    and work out the issue on their own?
    
    -- Mike

    Collis,

    You're right.  Simply by being with someone their 
    values are somehow expressed.  Teachers are no
    exception.  Sometimes this leads to conversion.

    Which morals may be overtly expressed?  A *good* 
    question and one without an good, simple answer.

    My first crack at this would be:
	to teach:
		1. tolerance of others
		2. respect of others
		3. respect of self
		4. respect of property
		5. a love of learning

    All of these are necessary in the running of an
    effective educational system.  There may be others.

    Is this what you were talking about?  

    What do you think?

    Tom

Those certainly are good values to teach.

When teachers are expected to teach about sex, however,
the teaching will extend over into the appropriateness
of sex - even if this extension is by the teacher's
refusal to discuss the subject (which implies, for
example, that there is not an answer which is clearly
right).

Collis

    re .62

    > It appears to me that those who are against the political
    > activation of the religious right in effect end up saying
    > that individuals can push for what they want (in terms of
           ^^^^^^^^^^^
    > legislation) *unless* they believe that God wants us to do
    > it. 

    I think the concern in not around *individuals*, but rather political
    organizations that hide behind the shield of a religious non-profit
    organization.  These groups (Christian Coalition, MM, etc.) don't
    garner a whole lot of respect in part because of this identity dodging. 
    I associate these right wing, self proclaimed "Christian",
    religio-political groups as being more concerned with limiting
    individual freedoms than what I see as real government issues: military
    interventions, global starvation, refugee and other human right issues,
    to name a few.

    Our legislators have an obligation to do what is right for the American
    people.  They have no obligation to do the bidding of a religious
    groups vision of God's will.  If the two coincide then fine.  But for
    the government to take a particular stand due solely to religious
    doctrine is, in my opinion, a violation of the Constitution.  Prayer
    in school is an issue that crosses this boundary.  The discussion of the
    problems with sex education in schools has many detractors for reasons
    other than pleasing God, and therefore is a valid issue.  As has been
    pointed out elsewhere, morality transcends religious doctrine and
    government involvement in these issues must, likewise, stand on its
    own, without being buttressed by theological arguments. 

    > I've rarely heard complaints about the non-religious push for (or
    > against) particular programs/laws.

    Well it's C-P not SOAPBOX, but I don't like the political "push" of
    HCI, NOW (in many, but not all cases), American neo-Nazis,
    segregationists, white supremacists, the "Rainbow" group in NYC,
    overt-in-your-face pro-gay groups, and Rush Limbaugh :^)  Ok, ok...
    Rush is just a goof, but the rest of those folk really burn me.
    Feel better? :^)
    
    	Eric
    
    

    re .66
    
    >>Of course, the point is somewhat mute. 
    
    What!??
    
    :^)

    The argument is apparently that since teachers teach morals anyway,
    they might as well teach the morals that you want them to teach.  I
    would suggest that it is not that simple, especially in the higher
    grades, and that the real value of an education in a democratic society
    is to allow citizens to make informed judgments, not to tell them what
    judgment to make.  It doesn't wash to claim that for schools not to
    teach your morals is in effect to teach morals you don't like.

    This was the point behind my earlier question about how teachers should
    address the morality of foreign policy.  For some of us, there are
    clear and significant moral implications to foreign policy.  In a
    democracy, I would consider the implications of these issues to be
    vastly more significant to the government than the implications of what
    people do in private, since the ability to formulate opinions about
    state policy is what drives the government policies that affect us all,
    and is not solely a private matter.  If, as is claimed, teachers cannot
    possibly encourage students to think about these issues themselves, but
    instead must indoctrinate them with one moral value or another if the
    issue is to be addressed at all, then how should teachers address the
    morality of public policy?  Should they teach children that what their
    government does is always morally correct?  Should they teach them the
    opposite?  Or should they bring these issues up for discussion and
    allow them to formulate their own views.

    I also could not disagree more with the idea that a teacher's "refusal
    to discuss the subject...implies that there is not an answer which is
    clearly right". I believe that there is an answer which is clearly
    right with respect to U.S. policy in Central American during the
    1980's.  It is to me such a clear moral issue that it drives a sense of
    moral outrage.  But I respect the importance of letting people
    formulate their own opinions; that is what democracy is all about, and
    education is an important tool in giving children the civil tools
    necessary to carry that out.  Any good teacher understands this.  My
    brother, who is a high school teacher, has indicated to me that he
    tries to encourage discussion of issues, rather than simply telling
    them what to think.  I would object in principle to schools telling
    students what to think with respect to Central America or any other
    important issue.  While it sometimes isn't hard to discern the opinions
    of your high school teachers, the good ones encourage discussion even
    of opinions that they may not agree with.

    If we accept that schools should not tell students what opinions to
    have about foreign policy, but if we also accept that schools have
    social studies classes which cannot help but bring these issues up in
    the first place, then the whole argument against sex education (which
    is that schools can't discuss morally significant issues without
    indoctrinating them with moral judgments about them) collapses.  Now I
    admit that I am mostly addressing the higher grades.  The complexity of
    these issues is more difficult for smaller children to deal with.  But
    my junior high and high school classes certainly dealt with important
    and complex issues, and I had teachers who encouraged open discussion. 

    -- Mike

Re:  .73

I'm sorry, I did not phrase what I meant very well.

Those who are religious are often attacked NOT because
of their views on the issues, but rather BECAUSE they
are religious.  This is what I particurlarly object to.
What difference does it make whether someone believes something
because they are convinced that it is sociology the best thing
or because they believe that God has revealed to them that it
is the best thing?

Personally, I think the attempting to eradicate religious
expression from the public is ridiculous.  Prayer in school
does not establish a national religion (despite a ruling
by the Supreme Court) and was never intended by the Founding
Fathers to be considered an improper act.

Now, we have students whom teachers refuse to allow to
read their Bibles to themselves during study halls (it is,
of course, being appealed).  One thing certainly does lead
to another.

As we as a people remove our foundational beliefs and values
and try to legislate them out of our public lives, we will
pay for the folly of our actions when other beliefs and values
come rushing in with their natural consequences.  This is
so apparent today - yet many deny the *reason* for why our
nation is such a mess.  The foundational unit - the family -
is under strong attack and appears to be losing the battle.
The foundational values - that there is a God we are responsible
to; one whom we should follow and obey - is undermined and
ignored by a large part of our society.  And we, as a society,
promote this tragedy in the name of "freedom" and "individual
rights".  Yes, we indeed will be free - free not only to do
whatever we want (perhaps without the guilt that God would have us
feel), but also free to accept the knife in the heart from someone 
who only knows knives and running as a way of life because he never
had a father to teach him differently.  This is the tradeoff
and, in my opinion, it's not worth it.

Collis

 Amen, Collis!




 I came in at the end of a discussion on the radio yesterday about a group of
 students who are arranging for voluntary prayer groups in various public
 schools and who are encountering all sorts of challenges.  Unfortunately I
 wasn't able to hear much of the discussion.





 Jim

    I would support the right of students to organize voluntary prayer
    groups, just as I support the right of students to make and distribute
    "underground" newspapers in the school.  Unfortunately, the Supreme
    Court in recent years seems to have been less amenable to the rights of
    students to engage in free expression in the schools.  We are even
    seeing public schools implementing dress codes in many parts of the
    country, even though this would have been deemed unconstitutional by
    the Supreme Court twenty years ago.
    
    The Supreme Court was correct in banning organized school prayer in the
    class room; on the other hand, it has unfortunately not always,
    especially in recent years, been supportive of the rights of free
    expression by students in the schools.
    
    -- Mike

    re .76

    I would agree it would be wrong to reject someone's political views
    simply because they are religious, irrespective of other supporting
    arguments.  However, and I'm repeating myself here, if the SOLE
    argument supporting a political view is a religious one, it does not
    belong in the law books.  One can certainly make a religious argument
    that murder is wrong, but it is not the SOLE argument why murder is bad
    for society.  Teaching that God has revealed that murder is bad... well
    that's pretty much an exclusively religious argument.

    The argument has been made before, and I agree with it, that when
    people say that we need to bring religion back to public schools they
    really mean Protestant Christian theology.  These same people would not
    be so driven if the predominant religion was Islam, for example.

    Eric 

I'm not aware of *any* proposal that have broad-based
conservative Christian support that are *only* based
on religious views with the exception of religion
based issues (such as school prayer).

I am glad that you do not support the media in their
efforts to condemn conservative Christians simply because
they are conservative Christians who want their views
to be (rightfully) taken into consideration.

Collis

    Collis is correct that religious speech is being singled out from other
    forms of speech.

    Each religious speech tolerance controversy is interpreted by
    anti-religious freedom organizations such as People for the American
    Way, the ACLU, Freedom From Religion as "establishment" of a religion
    and not a protected form of expression.

    I personally have no problem in the Religious Right getting into
    political activism.
    
    I do have a problem with the agenda of the Religious Right.
    
    I'm grateful for watchdog organizations which are helping us
    keep abreast of their activities.
    
    Richard
    

    The issue is not religious speech--which no major organization that I
    know of opposes--but government sponsorship of particular forms of
    religious expression.

    The example of this distinction between the right of individuals to
    express their religious views, and the opposition of government
    sponsorship of religious views, can be found in note 91.2654.  The ACLU
    supported the right of the New York St. Patrick's Day parade to exclude
    gays, but its position on last year's parade in Boston was to oppose
    the exclusion of gays.  The difference had to do with government
    sponsorship, and it was because the Boston parade this year may have
    addressed this question that the ACLU re-evaluated its position on the
    Boston parade.

    One reason I posted note 91.2654 was so that it would help clear up
    some of the misconceptions and misinformation about the ACLU's position
    on religious freedom that have been spread in this notes file.  

    -- Mike

    The organizers of the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York have never
    excluded gays and lesbians from the parade.  The Ancient Order of
    Hibernians did not accept the application of the Irish Gay and Lesbian
    Organization to march under its own banner.
    
    Mike, I'll accept that we hold different opinions of the role of the
    ACLU as the defender of religious freedom.