tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post7391752406482790662..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Testing the "Christian Nation" ThesisBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger129125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41368159064602906762009-11-25T16:51:11.053-07:002009-11-25T16:51:11.053-07:00.
Yes, Gregg, you are correct about JFK.
.
But, th....<br />Yes, Gregg, you are correct about JFK.<br />.<br />But, that is beside the point that I made.<br />.<br />It's nothing against Catholics--more power to them. But, it is against people that do not recognize the threat that a extra American authority can present to our liberties.<br />.<br />Justice Scalia ? Has he made the same promise to the American people?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57785089979764769302009-11-25T16:26:36.507-07:002009-11-25T16:26:36.507-07:00As I said: It seems to me that you're saying t...As I said: It seems to me that you're saying that Catholic officeholders (i.e. Kennedy & the Justices) are the threat to our liberties -- not the bishop.<br /><br />As for suspicion of -- and opposition to -- Catholics in power in America, it primarily had to do with Catholics being under a foreign sovereign: the pope. Every religion makes some claims on its adherents, so it's not specific demands (such as opposition to abortion) that were the concern. The concern was that the pope is a foreign leader. So, if Catholics are GOOD Catholics, they have an allegiance to another earthly power that could conflict with what America needs/demands/desires.<br /><br />That's why Kennedy (John), in his famous press conference, said:<br /><br />"Whatever issue may come before me as President ... I will make my decision in accordance ... with what my conscience tells me to be IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And NO POWER OR THREAT OF PUNISHMENT COULD CAUSE ME TO DECIDE OTHERWISE."<br /><br />He essentially said that he wasn't a good Catholic and would put America's interest ahead of his own eternal destiny.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14282534956290799852009-11-24T20:18:14.637-07:002009-11-24T20:18:14.637-07:00.
But it's not primarily a political matter to....<br /><i>But it's not primarily a political matter to the bishop -- it's a moral and spiritual matter.</i><br />.<br />I really don't know how the bishop thinks about it. I saw him being interviewed on MSNBC by Tweety Bird and he claimed he wasn't a law maker. That's for sure--not even in his official position as bishop. But, he IS an officer of the Church and as such he carries out the teachings and quite well. He would have to be good to climb to such a position of responsibility within the church. Obviously he has favor with the Cardinal.<br />.<br />I have no problem with any of that. It is the private business of all religious persons to have and to hold their beliefs as they desire and are convinced in their personal conscience. <br />.<br />But, the Catholic Church is a force to be reckoned with in society and it has always been so. It does claim to carry the imprimatur of divine authority in its charters. As such, the Catholic Church speaks for God to it's members.<br />.<br />What does that mean to a Catholic? Do we have Catholics on the Supreme Court. Is the Chief Justice a Catholic? Is Catholicism just all play acting and none of it is serious business as in eternal verities? Does a God fearing Christian put God first or do they put their loyalty to their country first? Why did the Revolutionary Era Americans hold religious liberty in such high regard? What was the reason that our Founding generation Americans were so vehemently opposed to the "Romish Church"?<br />.<br />I'm only asking questions.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66518909442004759172009-11-24T16:54:04.870-07:002009-11-24T16:54:04.870-07:00.
I think that, if you want to discuss such issues....<br />I think that, if you want to discuss such issues, that would be better done in response to my post at the American Society link given earlier.<br />.<br />I play chess and I know the bishop has a great deal of strength.<br />.<br /><b>;<)</b><br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27459817807138598282009-11-24T16:13:58.882-07:002009-11-24T16:13:58.882-07:00Of course the imperative is put on every Catholic ...Of course the imperative is put on every Catholic -- that's the effect of BEING Catholic, isn't it? But it's not primarily a political matter to the bishop -- it's a moral and spiritual matter. Actively supporting murder of children (the church's view of abortion) will put you outside the church's good graces and result in punishment. How can they NOT punish THEIR PARISHIONERS who so blatantly violate central church teachings? He is no threat to me or you -- we're not Catholic. If one doesn't want to follow what the church demands, then one should not expect the church's blessing and should change religions.<br /><br />What would you have the bishop do? Determine church policy by majority vote? Or by Supreme Court fiat? The bishop supposedly answers to a higher authority. What choice does he have?<br /><br />It seems to me that you're saying that Catholic officeholders (i.e. Kennedy & the Justices) are the threat to our liberties -- not the bishop. The bishop has no "political strength" -- he has only spiritual influence which may or may not move the political representative. It may well move those who are concerned about their spiritual condition, but it may not. It's their choice.<br /><br />If you want to talk about the early days of the republic: in the early days of the republic, one would have been run out of town for advocating or practicing abortion!<br /><br />It seems to me (and Stephen Carter, author of "The Culture of Disbelief") that too many Americans view religious faith as a "hobby" which one can just ignore or toss aside when convenient. Or that it's OK if you BELIEVE something as long as you keep it to yourself. But that's not religious freedom at all -- certainly not in the sense of the Free Exercise clause.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69062583926420943882009-11-24T14:57:10.291-07:002009-11-24T14:57:10.291-07:00.
In other words, the bishop is exercising his pol....<br />In other words, the bishop is exercising his political strength by sending this message across the land you and I love so dearly.<br />.<br />I'll have none of his pontifications and I will be wary of every Catholic who seeks my vote. I say he represents a clear and present danger to our precious liberties. As a priest in the early days of our republic, he would have been run out of town at best.<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44548843944834918052009-11-24T14:52:43.536-07:002009-11-24T14:52:43.536-07:00.
Gregg FRazer.
I fully understand the rationale ....<br />Gregg FRazer.<br /><br />I fully understand the rationale of your commentary; but, I think you are 180 degrees off.<br />.<br />The message that is being sent by the bishop is that if a Catholic wants to receive the last rites, etc., then he had best toe the line that the Church has drawn in concrete.<br />.<br />That puts an imperative on every Catholic--not just a representative of the people. But, this particular confrontation between Church and governmental representative--<b>and I hasten to add that it was the major reason why Catholics were denied positions in government and why there was such an anti-Catholic attitude in America for so long in our republic</b>--is a exceptional example of exactly one of the main reasons why the Revolution was fought.<br />.<br />If Kennedy bows to the Chruch, shouldn't those Catholic Justices on our Highest Court be expected to do the same?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67227357424343507122009-11-24T14:40:17.089-07:002009-11-24T14:40:17.089-07:00.
I don't hold grudges, Mr. Frazer.
.
And, I-....<br />I don't hold grudges, Mr. Frazer.<br /><br />.<br />And, I--myse4lf--am far from perfect.<br />.<br />So, I have to forgive anyone that trespasses on me if I ever expect forgiveness of my trespasses.<br />.<br />We're all, pretty much, in the same boat.<br />,Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38086053125859781822009-11-24T14:16:46.305-07:002009-11-24T14:16:46.305-07:00Pinky,
First, I'm not Catholic and I'm no...Pinky,<br /><br />First, I'm not Catholic and I'm not writing as an apologist for the Catholic church -- which I do not like at all.<br /><br />I went to your link to look at your argument re natural rights. Speaking of the bishop vs. Patrick Kennedy conflict, you say: "It deals with the idea of a Woman's right to choose and the right of the Catholic Church's right to impose its teaching of Kennedy's constituency. One man--the bishop--is demanding what he teaches over ride the will of We the People."<br /><br />The bishop is demanding no such thing and he's not imposing anything on Kennedy's constituency. He is not demanding that Kennedy be removed and he's not demanding that Kennedy's constituents prefer his teaching to their own will.<br /><br />What he IS saying is completely within the purview of his own realm of authority -- he is saying that Kennedy should be denied communion (the church's prerogative) because he is too far out of line with the church's teaching to be a communicant. American law is irrelevant concerning practices of religions which are not, in themselves, illegal.<br /><br />Kennedy is perfectly free to support abortion -- and so are his constituents. But he has no RIGHT to receive communion. He is free to choose support for abortion over good standing in the church, just as someone might favor murdering the elderly or allowing priests to marry or ordaining women priests or any number of things the church determines to be out of bounds. But that person is not free from consequences within the church's sphere of authority. <br /><br />If you do not hold to what the Catholic church teaches, then you're not a Catholic in good standing. If you're not a Catholic in good standing, you can be denied communion. It has nothing to do with rights. There is no right to receive communion.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72838388652890516832009-11-24T12:04:37.067-07:002009-11-24T12:04:37.067-07:00Pinky,
If I misread your intent with the "he...Pinky,<br /><br />If I misread your intent with the "heresy" comment, I apologize.<br /><br />I almost left that comment out -- clearly, I should have.<br /><br />Sorry.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77901001078679731772009-11-23T18:52:13.041-07:002009-11-23T18:52:13.041-07:00.
I am trying to put a post together that will be ....<br />I am trying to put a post together that will be acceptable at this site. Any criticism will be appreciated.<br />.<br />The title is The Nature of American Rights. Here is the link:<br />http://americansociety-today.blogspot.com/2009/11/natural-civil-rights-at-founding.html<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8614965911177608922009-11-23T18:36:47.479-07:002009-11-23T18:36:47.479-07:00.
First of all, the "heresy" remark was ....<br /><i>First of all, the "heresy" remark was pejorative and intended as a cheap shot against religion -- but it is irrelevant in this discussion about America and hate crimes, since no one is punished civilly for heresy in America today.</i><br />.<br />What's going on at this site that that such comments can be made without repercussion? You just run off at the mouth and I'm gtuilty of an attack on religion? What's next? I meant no such thing.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2177946299981011192009-11-23T18:06:31.089-07:002009-11-23T18:06:31.089-07:00Re: "People are not punished for what they th...Re: "People are not punished for what they think--unless you're speaking of the sin of heresy which is a religious crime. When a gang of tough guys thinks being gay is outside their norms and they beat some poor kid to death, their crime is not their thinking but the fact that they carried it out."<br /><br />First of all, the "heresy" remark was pejorative and intended as a cheap shot against religion -- but it is irrelevant in this discussion about America and hate crimes, since no one is punished civilly for heresy in America today. <br /><br />There already was -- and always has been -- a law against beating a kid to death. But hate crime laws add additional punishment on the basis of what the attacker was thinking when he/she did the assault. If he/she hated a protected category of people and then acted on that hatred, he/she is punished for the action AND for the thought which precipitated the action. It brings additional punishment. That is an assault on freedom of thought and the persons are, indeed, punished for what they think.<br /><br />In the example given, the "tough guys" would receive ADDITIONAL punishment because the person they attacked was a homosexual and BECAUSE they had bad thoughts toward homosexuals.Gregg Frazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16883853316391723287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56200391961038426852009-11-21T16:46:00.389-07:002009-11-21T16:46:00.389-07:00.
Angie, now you can forgive me.
.
I misspoke myse....<br />Angie, now you can forgive me.<br />.<br />I misspoke myself with this, "You have done that requires forgiveness."<br />.<br />I meant to write, "You have done <b>nothing</b> that requires forgiveness.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20323634772821494632009-11-21T16:38:53.782-07:002009-11-21T16:38:53.782-07:00,
You have done that requires forgiveness.
.
But,..., <br />You have done that requires forgiveness.<br />.<br />But, you are forgiven.<br />.<br />And be wary of husbands. They live in jealousy.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58980222628130580032009-11-21T16:33:03.035-07:002009-11-21T16:33:03.035-07:00.
I believe the Founders saw the institutionalized....<br />I believe the Founders saw the institutionalized church as a source of power.<br />.<br />That was their experience and they didn't want it in America.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76285649857454734162009-11-21T14:18:16.670-07:002009-11-21T14:18:16.670-07:00Amusing not because of you, but because of me. I a...Amusing not because of you, but because of me. I am notoriously misunderstood. My husband tells me that my thinking starts out with one strand, and then I start connecting...sometimes the connectinos are good ones, but other times they are just an intuitive "mess"...so forgive me, for writing in such a way...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90785045036116450902009-11-21T14:11:23.040-07:002009-11-21T14:11:23.040-07:00.
Amusing?
.
It wasn't an analysis; but, it wa....<br />Amusing?<br />.<br />It wasn't an analysis; but, it was pretty much the way it was.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49347580720707268842009-11-21T14:10:07.494-07:002009-11-21T14:10:07.494-07:00...or maybe I would. I don't know what I want ......or maybe I would. I don't know what I want from church anymore. Probably that they would just leave me alone, unless they want to befriend me as a person....but, I'd much rather have friends that don't make their friendship center around "the things of God", as that seems sectarian to me..Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82525160898906416662009-11-21T14:07:59.484-07:002009-11-21T14:07:59.484-07:00...and yet, I wouldn't want a State Church..........and yet, I wouldn't want a State Church....I guess I am becoming a more critical "idealist"...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28047551839541298352009-11-21T14:05:27.734-07:002009-11-21T14:05:27.734-07:00Pinky,
I find your analysis of my entry amusing, b...Pinky,<br />I find your analysis of my entry amusing, because my emphasis was NOT ON OR ABOUT FAITH...but conscience and freedom...which does not have to be in a religious context, at all.<br /><br />ONe does not have to have Protestant faith "over-see" their behavior. That is unless one chooses to do so. And I have nothing against Catholicism or any other tradition per se. The principles that are ethical are important to me, as to government and governing...<br /><br />I told someong the other day, that I was struggling to find a reason for the church, as the church is just a social organization. He suggested that the church held people accountable. I responded that my friends do that for me. And these "old friends" know me better so they are informed as to how I have already "overcome" and can be merciful to my weaknesses.<br /><br />The church is also a political organization that does not have accountability to the people in certain areas. This, I find, disturbing, as they want accountability of the individual TO the church, but do not want accountalbity to the people in the church. Don't ask questions, just obey, as "unto God".<br /><br />And the very idea that the church is separated from the State give it an opportune opportunity to an abuse of power....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35429499711892095742009-11-21T09:23:03.380-07:002009-11-21T09:23:03.380-07:00.
Here--I think--Angie is knocking on the door whe....<br />Here--I think--Angie is knocking on the door wherein the seeds of the ideas of Christian Nation sprout.<br />.<br />Remember that a major impetus for which the original Pilgrims came to North America had to do with religious intolerance and, more specifically, the model set by Roman Catholicism as the source of political power.<br />.<br />That was in the gut of every North American and expressed itself as anti-Catholicism. The culture (the very air the Revolutionary generation breathed) was 95+ percent Reformed Protestant in so far as the personal beliefs about human behavior were concerned. Left to his own devices, every man would resort to his lusts and depravity which would provide government with an unmanageable society--not anything anyone wanted. Everyone from George Washington on down knew the importance of not allowing the Romish paradigm to reign. And, they all believed the same thing about human depravity and some kind of final judgment--even the Deists, Unitarians, and the non-committed. At least they all gave lip service to it.<br />.<br />America's was a Reformed Protestant culture and the Founding ensured that the new nation wouldn't slip into a religious state that could be ruled by a theological source of unilateral power.<br />.<br />Congress would be unable to make any laws whatsoever on the topic or religion. The Founders were confident that Protestant Christianity would control the people in good stead.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29122456816803087472009-11-21T07:55:37.335-07:002009-11-21T07:55:37.335-07:00Pinky,
A religious person'a character could be...Pinky,<br />A religious person'a character could be 'defended" by their faithfulness to shun heretics.<br /><br />A conscientious objector could resist something he did not think was ethical in his behavior.<br /><br />Both behavior stem from what one thinks. But, are the defendable and on what grounds?<br /><br />The first has a right to shun or share their beliefs to a heretic, as this is what religious freedom is about, but they do not have a right to take a life, subvert a life in free choice of being a heretic.<br /><br />A conscientious objector can be upehld by his right to conscience. And yet, her might be judged as "unpatriotic", "rebellious", etc. by others who believe differently. But, he does not have the right to impinge upon another's right to choose the military or another understanding of faith.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17736089493533979482009-11-21T06:43:41.339-07:002009-11-21T06:43:41.339-07:00.
People are not punished for what they think--unl....<br />People are not punished for what they think--unless you're speaking of the sin of heresy which is a religious crime.<br />.<br />When a gang of tough guys thinks being gay is outside their norms and they beat some poor kid to death, their crime is not their thinking but the fact that they carried it out.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17609975530882835072009-11-21T03:48:45.429-07:002009-11-21T03:48:45.429-07:00A Somalian woman who escaped an arranged marriage ...A Somalian woman who escaped an arranged marriage and became educated in the Netherlands, agrees with Dr. Frazer's opinion concerning hate crimes. But, her conviction is that 'hate crimes" also entail 'free speech', which is a form of what Dr. Frazer is saying. Thoughts are expressed in opinions in written, as well as, spoken form. Political correctness is gaining ground in many areas and lives are at stake literally, as well as morally.<br /><br />I have been reading some opinions of Supreme Court Justices, present and past, on the "evolving Constitution". Very Interesting!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com