tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2449170761747431458..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Brief on Founding Fathers and Islam I Co-Authored For the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding...Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59343777394539360372011-04-24T07:56:04.332-06:002011-04-24T07:56:04.332-06:00Jon stated:
"Islam is an Abrahamic religion....Jon stated:<br /><br />"Islam is an Abrahamic religion. So I'd like to why if imago dei is key why Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, certain forms of Deism are not equally entitled to that claim which would make America more a theistic or Providential nation in a political sense. NOT a "Christian Nation." I think there is a good political-historical basis for SCOTUS' "ceremonial deism" doctrine. Though I agree it treats atheists and polytheists like outsiders which is something I am not in favor of."<br /><br />Ever since I read the paper that was presented at your other blog this summer, I have wondered a great deal as to if Islamic Theology places any importance on imago dei. That would be a good study. With that stated, even if they did, their view of it would be very different to the Christian view in that Muslims see the characteristics of God differently then Christians do.<br /><br />It was actually what led to the split in my limited readings. They believed that the Christians and Jews had perverted the original message as given to Abraham. <br /><br />As far as Judaism I am no expert in Ancient Hebrew philosophy or the Jewish religion but I think the split with Christianity has nothing to do with different views on imago dei. <br /><br />Mormons and other supposed offshoots along with you second comment strays off the tracks in my view in that you seem to think it more important to look at individual founders or influential preachers and analyze what they personally believed and if it was different than the "orthodox" at the time label it "non-Christian".<br /><br />That is fine but it is poor evidence to support the bold claim you and James made in the paper. Or I should say in the intro that was posted here because I have not had time to read the paper. But as Tom says above, We have discussed this enough that I fairly sure I know your thesis and how you go about supporting it. <br /><br />I maintain that the more important questions:<br /><br />1. What ideas influenced the founding of America?<br /><br />2. Where did these ideas come from?<br /><br /><br />are the accurate frame in which this discuss should take place. <br /><br /><br />Joe/King of IrelandAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88759687077515492832011-04-20T07:45:07.887-06:002011-04-20T07:45:07.887-06:00Try try again...
TVD - Mmmmmmaybe. That the peopl...Try try again...<br /><br />TVD - <i>Mmmmmmaybe. That the people are sovereign isn't quite the same thing as "humanism."</i><br /><br />But, the people as sovereign is far different than the king or Pope as competing sovereigns (sans "the people") coming out of the late Medieval age. <br /><br />The humanism that I refer to is the growing appreciation for the reason and capabilities of man* starting around the Italian Renaissance with the uptick of classical studies. There was a humanist influence on Christianity as well as the secular.<br /><br />As Michael Hines (Christian Chronicler) notes, “Were it not for the secular Renaissance and its liberty of thought, the Protestant Reformation probably would have waited.” And the Enlightenment. <br /><br />*and by "man" I'm referring to mankind in general - don't want to forget 50% of humanity.<br /><br />See Wiki or "The Christian Chronicler" or Google.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89301247766343475902011-04-20T07:35:07.231-06:002011-04-20T07:35:07.231-06:00OK, there's definitely something spooky going ...OK, there's definitely something spooky going on. How's Pinky quoting one of my disappeared comments?<br /><br />I tried posting a comment 3-4 times last night and each time it almost immediately disappeared. I tried eliminating HTMLing links then the links altogether. All were within the word limit. My last attempt was "test" which apparently came through and stayed put.<br /><br />Am I doing something wrong? Was it just the weather?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66324511362155527412011-04-20T06:18:14.214-06:002011-04-20T06:18:14.214-06:00As Michael Hines (Christian Chronicler) notes, “We...<i>As Michael Hines (Christian Chronicler) notes, “Were it not for the secular Renaissance and its liberty of thought, the Protestant Reformation probably would have waited.” And the Enlightenment. </i><br />,<br />'Probably?<br />.<br />How about <b>definitely</b>.<br />.<br />And, thanks to such thinkers as DesCartes and Spinoza.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78297827031354439062011-04-19T21:05:10.562-06:002011-04-19T21:05:10.562-06:00testtestjimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67227101101204881472011-04-18T12:54:58.715-06:002011-04-18T12:54:58.715-06:00Mmmmmmaybe. That the people are sovereign isn'...Mmmmmmaybe. That <i>the people</i> are sovereign isn't quite the same thing as "humanism."<br /><br />And I quite agree on sectarianism and pluralism being the cure. Lucky for us, there were so many sects! As Voltaire said of England, <br /><br /><i>This is the country of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever road he pleases.<br /><br />...<br /><br />If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace."</i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50777734305702921182011-04-18T09:35:52.217-06:002011-04-18T09:35:52.217-06:00TVD - However, I think there's a danger in rea...TVD - <i>However, I think there's a danger in reading the Founding era's great fear of sectarianism for a desire for secularism as the cure.</i><br /><br />I think that the biggest fear or concern driving the secular nature of the US Constitution wasn't a fear of sectarianism but of a partnership between religion and civil government as an abridgment to freedom of conscience. As far as I can tell, the founders that I recall commenting on sectarianism felt that the more sects the better in order to thwart accumulation of power and influence.<br /><br />I make no assertion that the founders-framers-ratifiers were trying to invoke a purely secular society, that would be counter factual. And I'm not reading it that way. However, the Constitution does clearly elevate the sovereignty of man* in his civil affairs over that of any religion or religion in general. It is an experiment in human reason and human ability. It is the logical extension of the rise of humanism from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Not necessarily secular humanism but then that's not ruled out as a partner in the experiment.<br /><br />*By this I mean humankind - the people - and don't mean to slight the other half of humanity.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70564119714396506882011-04-18T08:59:18.414-06:002011-04-18T08:59:18.414-06:00.
Off topic.
I have a question about paragraphs 1....<br />Off topic.<br /><br />I have a question about paragraphs 11 and 12 in # 10 of The Federalist. Can someone help me get it clear? You can email me at johnson_phil@sbcglobal.net<br />.<br />Thankee Kindlee<br /><br />PinkyPhil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-844765187416674082011-04-17T19:22:36.907-06:002011-04-17T19:22:36.907-06:00Thx, Pinky. I knew I could count on you.Thx, Pinky. I knew I could count on you.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45773760578384788182011-04-17T19:00:28.120-06:002011-04-17T19:00:28.120-06:00.
Geez, Tom. You brought it on yourse3lf.
.
.
..<br />Geez, Tom. You brought it on yourse3lf.<br />.<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-62554355325533939432011-04-17T18:53:10.557-06:002011-04-17T18:53:10.557-06:00James, I repeat, my counterargument is that this w...James, I repeat, my counterargument is that this whole brouhaha has nothing to do with Constitutional issues, nor even with Christianity in any relevant way.<br /><br />These are my objections and demurrals from your paper. Your rudeness makes me disinclined to engage you any further at this time. <br /><br />As for your friend Dr. Kahn, pls do invite him to stop by.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18419342954619607932011-04-17T18:35:19.623-06:002011-04-17T18:35:19.623-06:00I notice also that Mr. Van Dyke ducked the questio...I notice also that Mr. Van Dyke ducked the question about whether he's distinguishing between Christian culture and Christian government--instead of answering it he dodges to another issue, whether we see Islam the same way.<br /><br />I asked a sincere question, about a distinction which is in fact at the heart of what Jon and I wrote, and which I honestly am not sure where Mr. Van Dyke stands on it. But he ducks it. Once again we see how Mr. Van Dyke seems unwilling to take a clear and explicit stand when asked a question, ensuring that yet again nobody will possibly be able to pin him down on any specific point.James Hanleyhttp://bawdyhouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22011444460492010432011-04-17T18:31:04.548-06:002011-04-17T18:31:04.548-06:00Since you're disinclined to discuss Islam-as-I...<i>Since you're disinclined to discuss Islam-as-Islam and its specificities,</i><br /><br />I'm disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, to see you once again make a strawman of my position.<br /><br />I'm more than happy to discuss the specificities of Islam; but I refuse to fall into your trap of limiting those specificities to just the ones you find convenient to use in defining your particular vision of Islam, qua Islam. <br /><br />When you're willing to move beyond your crabbed and constricted view of Islam to discuss the specifics that don't suit your preferred interpretation of it, you know where to find me.<br /><br />Truly I'd like to see if I could get you into a debate with my friend <a href="http://www.ijtihad.org/" rel="nofollow">Muqtedar Kahn</a>. Have you ever dared to debate Islam with a Muslim, or do you only do it in the safe confines of other non-Muslims?James Hanleyhttp://bawdyhouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35935132595922346482011-04-17T16:34:13.939-06:002011-04-17T16:34:13.939-06:00Building a place of worship isn't covered by &...Building a place of worship isn't covered by "free exercise?" But I'm glad I wrote "few or none" instead of "none." You always have to leave wiggle room for "the radical few."<br /><br />http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/April/NY-Supreme-Court-Hears-Ground-Zero-Mosque-Case-/<br /><br />Nice to hear from you, Mr. Darrell. I can't find any legitimate legal scholarship on the web that supports your contention. Neither can I see the Klayman effort getting anywhere; I don't see where his client even has standing to bring suit.<br /><br />I rather suspect the NY Court is giving them their day in court so they can laugh them out of it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15269116768388522872011-04-17T16:05:40.948-06:002011-04-17T16:05:40.948-06:00That building at 51 Park is protected by the First...<i>That building at 51 Park is protected by the First Amendment is disputed by few or none. </i><br /><br />Offhand, I would expect that to be disputed by anyone with a whit of knowledge about the law.<br /><br />Buildings are not protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution protects the rights of humans.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68461310702898914832011-04-17T14:19:14.346-06:002011-04-17T14:19:14.346-06:00James, I don't want to pretend I didn't se...James, I don't want to pretend I didn't see your comment, but already I've had my say. Since you're disinclined to discuss Islam-as-Islam and its specificities, I've tried to limit my remarks to the limits you've defined.<br /><br />My counterargument is that this whole brouhaha has nothing to do with Constitutional issues, nor even with Christianity in any relevant way.<br /><br />Thx for the pleasant discussion.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28580185266363192512011-04-17T13:53:25.028-06:002011-04-17T13:53:25.028-06:00Mr. Van Dyke,
Are you distinguishing between a se...Mr. Van Dyke,<br /><br />Are you distinguishing between a secular culture and a secular government? I suspect the Founders were. And that's at the heart of the argument Jon and I are making. We agree that American culture was, and mostly still is, Christian, but distinguish that from the functioning and purpose of the country's governing institutions.James Hanleyhttp://bawdyhouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34623735154416229182011-04-17T13:46:19.847-06:002011-04-17T13:46:19.847-06:00I think there's some support for your theory, ...I think there's some support for your theory, JRB: Madison in particular seems congenial. And several states [North Carolina?] went more to the Virginia model after ratification.<br /><br />However, I think there's a danger in reading the Founding era's great fear of sectarianism for a desire for secularism as the cure.<br /><br />Let's recall how appalled men like Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris were at the rampant atheism of the French Revolution. And even Tom Paine said he went to France to save them from atheism. Tom Paine!<br /><br />IOW, their strict non-sectarianism isn't the same as a strict secularism.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50448090508965743742011-04-17T12:33:09.431-06:002011-04-17T12:33:09.431-06:00Jason, I think Pinky is right. Power, which Rome r...Jason, I think Pinky is right. Power, which Rome represents, is always oppressive, if not accountable to those it is supposed to serve! Hierarchal power was the understanding and strucure of the Roman Church.<br /><br />The Greek Church liked representations/icons. The split over "the HOly Spirit" occurred because of the disagreement on the Trinity, whether Jesus was part of the Godhead, or was Jesus a divinized man? Representation of "God" was the understanding of "God's messenger", which Islam understood to be Mohummad. Christianity's "messenger" was Christ.<br /><br />The Roman Church sought to protect its interests and thus created conflict. The Crusades were an attempt to conquer in "God's name". Today, it is done through evangelism/conversion, a spiritualized message, which now is being challenged by "the social" responsibilities/obligations of Christians. Our country has not valued "the social" as a formal demand of government, as we were not a socialist Republic. We were an independent Republic. The "social aspect' of society was re-inforced by the social strucutres of the family, community/neigborhood, and church (the church being a part of the local community).<br /><br />I don't believe that a spritualized message is palatable in "the real world", because it can lead to irrational decisions in the name of "faith". All kinds of atrocities can be done in the name of "faith", but these are justified because of the Church's continued need to further "their cause" of propitating its "message", power, influence, and control across the globe.<br /><br />Our government wasn't understood as "God's Kingdom", though it is the height or type of moral government, as it allows for diversity, and choice of the individuals that live within its ranks! Hopefully, Americans will appreciate the liberties we are so priviledged to have and not forsake the Republic and its needs at present!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90084087055900662382011-04-17T11:09:10.567-06:002011-04-17T11:09:10.567-06:00James: I find it curious that the handful of Canad...James: <i>I find it curious that the handful of Canadian students I get in my American Gov't class seem unaware that the U.S. twice invaded Canada.</i><br /><br />Fascinating! Although it compares with the average American's understanding of our history.<br /><br />Jonathan: <i>What would have happened if America lost the revolutionary war. Gasp. We would have become like Canada.</i> <br /><br />C’est la vie! <br /><br />Actually, I think that's part of Jimmy Carter's argument against the American Revolution. "... in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war. ... of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way."Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-197609833718149162011-04-17T10:26:10.840-06:002011-04-17T10:26:10.840-06:00A running joke: What would have happened if Ameri...A running joke: What would have happened if America lost the revolutionary war. Gasp. We would have become like Canada.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4150326595310645892011-04-17T10:19:21.370-06:002011-04-17T10:19:21.370-06:00.
With all due respect, Jason, it appears to me th....<br />With all due respect, Jason, it appears to me that Christianity has always been exactly what it is today, a competitive force in search of a more effective way to have contol of the immediate society--locally or more far reaching. All of which greatly depends on the ability of any leaders to gain an attentive audience, eg., the early bishops, Constatine & all the popes, King Henry VIII, Jonathon Edwards, D. James Kennedy, etal.<br />.<br />The rhetorice (doctrinal teaching) is all about gathering followers. It's all a matter of purification--always trying to be better at it than the ones who came before.<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46685692139751002882011-04-17T09:56:51.576-06:002011-04-17T09:56:51.576-06:00They had their chance to get in on the deal early ...<i>They had their chance to get in on the deal early but rebuffed our advances, or at least Washington's.</i><br /><br />Heh, they rebuffed both our political <i>and</i> our military advances!<br /><br />As a total aside, I find it curious that the handful of Canadian students I get in my American Gov't class seem unaware that the U.S. twice invaded Canada.James Hanleyhttp://bawdyhouse.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59487326746009360612011-04-17T09:30:41.580-06:002011-04-17T09:30:41.580-06:00jimmyraybob, yes, Quebec would have been an intere...jimmyraybob, yes, Quebec would have been an interesting test. Given the reaction to the Quebec Act of 1774 in the colonies (viewed as promoting the Catholic faith) I have my doubts but by 1790 who knows? <br /><br />I read that Washington combated anti-Catholic bigotry in the ranks of the Continental Army. <br /><br />In another interesting case, I also read (Joseph Ellis) that Washington, upon signing the Treat of New York with the Creek Nation) hoped that it would someday become a state upon learning the white man’s settled life. I don’t remember reading about Washington’s aspirations for their spiritual development. Does anyone know these details?Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58739660164254592742011-04-17T09:15:59.109-06:002011-04-17T09:15:59.109-06:00Was Christianity about government/history (Rome) o...<i>Was Christianity about government/history (Rome) or about philosophy/truth (Greek)?</i><br /><br />Angie, if you’re talking about Christianity in its first century I’d say neither. It was about redemption through faith in the face of the imminent second coming. When that didn’t happen it had to evolve by absorbing Greek and Roman ways. The 1st century Romans often viewed the Christians as atheists because they rejected the belief in all the gods with rare exception. The Christians thought that rare exception should count. A slight difference of opinion?Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.com