Caught Up in The Rapture

The Autonomist ^ | 7/8/04 | Chris Matthew Sciabarra

[Hank Kerchief]

 

Please vote in the new poll, "Is Religion Good or Bad for America?" related to this article, and another "Symbolism In the Presidential Race" by Michael D. Shaw which I will post shortly.

[redgolum]

Hello Hank, Long time no see. Will read later and post.

[Hank Kerchief]

The "Symbolism In the Presidential Race" article is posted on Free Republic here.

[Hank Kerchief]

Yes, it has been some time. I'm very busy these days, but I have been around.

I don't think you'll like or agree with this article, but it is the best understanding some people have of the relationship of Christianity to American politics.

Hank

[escapefromboston]

will read this later

[Hank Kerchief]

PHILOSOPHY PING

(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)

Hank

[Mr. Jeeves]

The Founding Fathers—most of them deist in their religious orientation—understood the supreme importance of the separation of church and state, even if they sought the entitlements of rights and revolution on the basis of the "laws of nature and of nature’s God." For those of us who understand the equally important separation of economy and state, it is clear that the erosion of these principles has led to the erosion of the very rights for which the Founders fought.

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-- Thomas Jefferson

[GeorgiaYankee]

The early American Christian settlers could never have dreamed that in this atmosphere of freedom, houses of worship would be fruitful and multiply.

This statement is amazingly illogical. The early American Christian settlers came here FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Why wouldn't they expect houses of worship to be fuitful and multiply?
How does the author know what these people could or could not have dreamed of? Is he a time-traveler AND a mind-reader?

[topcat54]

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction."
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
"The fear of the LORD prolongs life, But the years of the wicked will be shortened."
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' "

-- God

[Mr. Jeeves]

Those are the beliefs of a slave, not a man. A code that would serve the interests of mortals like the Sanhedrin (who I suspect were its true authors) and other such tax collectors better than it would serve the interests of the faithful.

[Publius]

The early American Christian settlers came here FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Why wouldn't they expect houses of worship to be fuitful and multiply?

The early Christian settlers, specifically those of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, did in fact come here to worship at they pleased. Back home in England, the Pilgrims/Puritans could be brought before the Star Chamber and then be jailed or disfigured. The Pilgrims' first stop after England was the Netherlands, where they could also worship as they pleased, but where they would also lose their English identity, which was quite precious to them.

Certainly they wanted houses of worship to be fruitful and multiply, but only those houses of worship that represented their specific sect. All others were banned. Anglicans, Catholics and other sects labeled by the British government as "Dissenters" were not welcome in Boston. The colony was to be an exclusive polity where the law of God, as stated in the Bible, was the law of the state. Church and state were one, a Puritan theocracy.

The early Christian settlers left behind a lot of sermons and other things in print, so we know what they were thinking in great detail. No one needs to be a mind reader to find out what they were thinking. A little research is enough.

[redgolum]

Thought provoking, and I probably don't have the time right now to craft a reply that could do this article justice.

One problem I have is that i am not sure how the author is defining "pietist". The Pietist movement was started by John Wesley and his brother, and led to the beginning of the Methodists. However it was not just an English movement. The history of the Lutheran church in the US has been one of constantly trying to purge or redirect the pietist movement that took root in the later 1800's.

Basically, Pietism is the belief that you don't "need" a visible church body with creeds or sacraments to be a good Christian. It also puts the focus on righteous living and individual holiness. In many ways it is anti Church because many Pietists have become "lone rangers" and no longer worship at a church building on Sundays.

Their views on government have varied widely throughout the years. Some have advocated a type of republican theocracy (which seems to be what the author is hinting at), but for the most part Pietists reject involvement in any type of governing activity. Government is of the world, and is there for corrupt and sinful. The typical Pietist of the late 1800's to early 1900's would probably share some of the views of the politicians that gave us the Comstock laws, but would not approve of a Christian working to make those laws. Contemporary Christians of the Left Behind mentality often share this view. I mean if we are going to get taken out of the whole mess before it gets REALLY bad, why worry to much about who gets elected?

There are many Pietist influenced movements today. The author talked about "The Purpose Driven Life" as one. But these are something else. People have been trying to blend the popular culture with Christanity to make the later more appealing. The result is a blended mis mash of views that don't fit well into a strictly secular or religious view point.

A more accurate view of the increase of religion in politics is that more and more of the religious Christians in the USA are worried about the moral decline of the nation. Many Roman Catholics and non Catholic groups are forming groups together to work on changing certain issues (ie abortion), and are building connections that ten to twenty years ago would have seemed impossible. I will continue this later, and apologize if this post has rambled on to much.

[tpaine]

Good article. -- Thanks.

[beckett]

One 4-year old child cried hysterically, asking his mother "why the bunny was being whipped."

Mel was bringing on a new holocaust according to many, including, undoubtedly, the smarmy author of this piece, and, after scouring world culture for months, all that could be found was a four year old crying "hysterically."

Not exactly the ovens of Auschwitz, now is it?

[tpaine]

"Religion has been an important cultural and political force since before the inception of the American republic.
Indeed, among the American settlers were the religiously persecuted who fled their native lands in search of the right to worship, free from the interfering hands of the state."

"The early American Christian settlers could never have dreamed that in this atmosphere of freedom, houses of worship would be fruitful and multiply. ---
--- it is clear that tens of millions of people are committed to some kind of religious observance and that the United States remains a profoundly religious society."

______________________________________


GeorgiaYankee wrote:

This statement is amazingly illogical. The early American Christian settlers came here FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Why wouldn't they expect houses of worship to be fuitful and multiply?

How does the author know what these people could or could not have dreamed of? Is he a time-traveler AND a mind-reader?

______________________________________

No, he's a student of history, and the religious history of that day claimed that the State had to force a religion on the people to ensure piety.
Many of the colonial states had such religions.

We can see now that the opposite is true.

Political freedom is GOOD for religious freedom. The more individual freedom we have, the more pious some people can become..

Unfortunately, there is still a subset of the pious, even today, -- who reject the teachings of history, and want to re-institute State support for churches.

[HarleyD]

Act 9:31 So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.

2Co 5:11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences.

Seems like the faithful didn't think so.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Those are the beliefs of a slave, not a man.***

That which you seem to think is freedom is actually slavery.

[sheltonmac]

Unfortunately, there is still a subset of the pious, even today, -- who reject the teachings of history, and want to re-institute State support for churches.

Worse, there is a subset of the pious who want to institute church support for the state. This campaign season has made that rather clear.

[tpaine]

" --- Religion is being used by the representatives of government and politically constituted groups as a statist tool for the remaking of the modern world. And therein lies the danger.
The Founding Fathers—most of them deist in their religious orientation—understood the supreme importance of the separation of church and state, ---"

The article makes a clear case that the erosion of this principle leads to the erosion of ALL of the rights for which the Founders fought.

[aruanan]

when Christ removes all the right-believing Christians from the Earth to spare them the onslaught of the End of Days. It’s a little piece of religious eschatology, justified by certain Protestant sects with references to books of the Old and New Testament.

With references to--but no exegetical support from--isolated verses in the New Testament. And scarcely ever any references to the origin of the doctrine in Manuel Lacuna at the end of the 18th century.