The Spiritual Heritage of the USA

[+joc]

7 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Pretty much every hardcore conservative that I've encountered has advocated for "pulling yourself up from your bootstraps" and having a "good work ethic" to fix your own problems, rather than rely on "free handouts" to assist the poor and needy

I don't really see that as a conservative/liberal issue.  The old adage is:  Give a man a fish and he will eat that day.  Teach a man how to fish and he will eat every day.

Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with it.  Millions have 'pulled themselves up from their bootstraps' without any political agenda at all.  I am one of those.  Necessity is the mother of invention.  No conservative I have ever heard is advocating not helping those in need...quite the opposite!  

What conservatism does say is that it is a bad idea both for the needy and for the rest of society to dole out a 'living' to the needy.  What welfare does is lock people in a place where they have no real hope of ever 'learning how to fish'  for fear that the Government will take away their 'living'.   We have tons of programs designed to help the needy.  Conservatives know that there are some among us who actually do need long term 'living' assistance.  And it is a real blessing for those who are helped by the various forms of SSI.  

Jesus also said:  The poor you have with you always.  Poor 'illegal' immigrants flood into our system and the government doles out a 'living' to them as well.  I remember times when I worked all day in the hot sun and was glad to get the hundred dollars I made...and I would go to the grocery store and buy a few things to eat...while in front of me was some woman with 4 kids and two shopping carts full of food I could never afford...and then she whips out the Government Food Card.  

That's the kind of thing conservatives are against.  

8 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Luke 12:33 - "Sell all your possessions and give to the poor."

Matthew 19:21 - "Jesus said to him, 'If you want to be perfect, sell all your possessions and give them to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"

Yes, he taught that "do unto others as you would yourself" stuff, but he also very clearly supported assisting the poor.

And then there was the woman who wanted to wash his feet with expensive oils who was scolded by some disciples who told her she should go sell the oils and give the money to the poor.   And Jesus told them ...the poor you have with you always...

 

8 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Again, Jesus didn't really get political, so I agree with you there. But he shared a similar sentiment that socialists do, which is to give assistance to the poor and needy.

Conservatives and Capitalists may support individual charity work, but only so much as it doesn't cut too much into their profits. They still support the acquisition of massive amounts of individual wealth. Yet when Jesus is literally telling rich folks in biblical times to sell all their wealth and give to the poor, then that tends to lean more towards the socialistic philosophy rather than the capitalistic one.

Socialism has nothing to do with 'giving to the poor'...moreover it says...you are all poor...give the government ALL of your money and we will give you what you need.  While Capitalism says...here is a helping hand, but keep in mind that by exercising your freedoms and 'thinking' and 'learning' how to fish you can find a way out of poverty.  The vast majority of wealthy people in this country were themselves poor at one time or another.  Ask Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, how it felt to have his Chevron card cut in half in front of him by the clerk at a gas station...because he already owed them too much money and was declined. Something like that anyway.  

And no...Jesus was not telling rich people to give all their money away.  He was talking to a specific individual who came up and said, Master, how do I enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  That is what Jesus told him...and he went away sadly because he was very wealthy.  Which was an exercise by Jesus in the teaching of Hypocrisy...not 'how to be'.

And...when Peter came to Jesus and said...we need money for taxes and have none...what should we do.  Jesus told him to go down to the water and he would find a fish with a coin in it's mouth....which was basically Jesus way of saying...Dude...you are a fisherman...go fish!  So...you see Jesus was Capitalistic as well!

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, joc said:

And no...Jesus was not telling rich people to give all their money away.  He was talking to a specific individual who came up and said, Master, how do I enter the Kingdom of Heaven. 

So we can disregard what Jesus says when he is talking to only one person or just a few because those are teachings that only apply to them?  Cool, I'm probably saved then.

[SHaYap]

Geeeeshuusssssh.... 

~

[hetrodoxly]

On 8/20/2019 at 1:00 AM, Kenemet said:

Swearing was also punishable by death in Jamestown

Is this true? you have to be careful how somethings are recorded, i read this "In the early seventeenth century, Boston's Roger Scott was picked up for "repeated sleeping on the Lord's Day" and sentenced to be severely whipped'

 

read on... "for striking the person who waked him from his godless slumber."

Recently an American author wrote a book listing all the gays executed in 19th century England including a 14 year old boy, none of it was true, one of the men she says who was innocently executed was a paedophile, luckily a guy on the radio show she was promoting her book on knew his history and confronted her.

Edited August 30, 2019 by hetrodoxly

[Kenemet]

5 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

Is this true? you have to be careful how somethings are recorded, i read this "In the early seventeenth century, Boston's Roger Scott was picked up for "repeated sleeping on the Lord's Day" and sentenced to be severely whipped'

 

read on... "for striking the person who waked him from his godless slumber."

Recently an American author wrote a book listing all the gays executed in 19th century England including a 14 year old boy, none of it was true, one of the men she says who was innocently executed was a paedophile, luckily a guy on the radio show she was promoting her book on knew his history and confronted her.

You're correct, death for swearing wasn't from Jamestown, though it was Biblical.  I think my brain was off to lunch.

Wikipedia, however, notes that counterfeiting money was considered a capital punishment and merited death:  "By 1776, most of the colonies had similar laws about the death penalty. In most colonies, the capital crimes were arson, piracy, treason, murder, sodomy, burglary, robbery, rape, stealing horses, slave rebellion, and counterfeiting (making fake money). Usually, people sentenced to death were hanged."

Come to think of it, that's a good example of US laws not based on the Bible.  Sodomy, burglary, rape, slave rebellion, and counterfeiting aren't mentioned as criminal offenses worthy of death in the Bible.

[hetrodoxly]

10 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

You're correct, death for swearing wasn't from Jamestown, though it was Biblical.  I think my brain was off to lunch.

Wikipedia, however, notes that counterfeiting money was considered a capital punishment and merited death:  "By 1776, most of the colonies had similar laws about the death penalty. In most colonies, the capital crimes were arson, piracy, treason, murder, sodomy, burglary, robbery, rape, stealing horses, slave rebellion, and counterfeiting (making fake money). Usually, people sentenced to death were hanged."

Come to think of it, that's a good example of US laws not based on the Bible.  Sodomy, burglary, rape, slave rebellion, and counterfeiting aren't mentioned as criminal offenses worthy of death in the Bible.

It's a good job it's not true, if i'd lived then i'd be f*&^%$ dead.

[+joc]

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

So we can disregard what Jesus says when he is talking to only one person or just a few because those are teachings that only apply to them?  Cool, I'm probably saved then.

We can disregard what Jesus says period...or you can pattern your life by what you understand about what is written about what he said.  But then again...I hold in high regard quotes from various movies which I have also used in patterning my life...and I loathe Hollywood ...so...

...for instance... Yota...Do or do not, there is no try.

Chevy Chase from Caddy Shack....See your future, BE your future!   

Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind....Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

And...John Belushi from Animal House....Guess what I am now!

Not to mention songs ...but I will anyway...

Janis Joplin...as a matter of fact as we discovered on the train, tomorrow never happens man, it's all the same freaking day man!

[Aquila King]

8 hours ago, joc said:

I don't really see that as a conservative/liberal issue.  The old adage is:  Give a man a fish and he will eat that day.  Teach a man how to fish and he will eat every day.

Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with it.  

Promoting a "good work ethic" isn't a left-wing or right-wing political thing. Assuming that most or all solutions to poverty is to simply acquire a "good work ethic" is a conservative philosophy.

8 hours ago, joc said:

Millions have 'pulled themselves up from their bootstraps' without any political agenda at all. 

You know the real irony of that saying is that it is actually impossible for someone to literally "pull themselves up from their bootstraps." Just from a scientific / physics perspective, that physically cannot happen.

Not sure why that saying ever became popular to promote a good work ethic. 

8 hours ago, joc said:

What welfare does is lock people in a place where they have no real hope of ever 'learning how to fish'  for fear that the Government will take away their 'living'. 

That's Just an objectively false statement.

Literally nobody on the left is arguing that people should be able to make a comfortable living doing absolutely nothing and just living off the government. That's a complete myth and outright lie that's perpetuated by conservative media outlets. Welfare just doesn't work that way.

Lefties are typically against bad trade deals that ship American jobs overseas, thus supporting Americans actually working. There are even several leftists out there currently promoting policy for a "Federal Jobs Guarantee" which literally guarantees every American a job.

If you think that support for welfare programs somehow means people support others making a comfortable living while doing nothing, then you clearly are completely misinformed on what the opposing side is actually in favor of here.

9 hours ago, joc said:

Poor 'illegal' immigrants flood into our system and the government doles out a 'living' to them as well. 

So are illegal immigrants "stealing Americans jobs" or "living off government welfare?" It can't be both. Pick one grotesque unfaithful smear and stick with it please.

Also it's literally impossible for someone who's undocumented to sign up for welfare, so yeah, this is just a hateful conservative smear.

9 hours ago, joc said:

And then there was the woman who wanted to wash his feet with expensive oils who was scolded by some disciples who told her she should go sell the oils and give the money to the poor.   And Jesus told them ...the poor you have with you always...

Yeah, this is one of those times where Jesus supports people worshiping him as God and lavishing him with gifts over assisting the poor and needy. I'm not defending Jesus here. Jesus supported assisting the poor, but he was also a creepy ass cult leader and the occasional dick.

9 hours ago, joc said:

Socialism has nothing to do with 'giving to the poor'...moreover it says...you are all poor...give the government ALL of your money and we will give you what you need.  While Capitalism says...here is a helping hand, but keep in mind that by exercising your freedoms and 'thinking' and 'learning' how to fish you can find a way out of poverty.  The vast majority of wealthy people in this country were themselves poor at one time or another.  Ask Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys, how it felt to have his Chevron card cut in half in front of him by the clerk at a gas station...because he already owed them too much money and was declined. Something like that anyway.

There's so much wrong with this that I wouldn't even know where to begin...

It's clearly evident that you don't have the first clue what Socialism is despite arguing against it, all while holding a completely distorted view wealthy and powerful.

9 hours ago, joc said:

So...you see Jesus was Capitalistic as well!

As I said, Jesus was apolitical. He never expressed any political beliefs.

[+joc]

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Promoting a "good work ethic" isn't a left-wing or right-wing political thing. Assuming that most or all solutions to poverty is to simply acquire a "good work ethic" is a conservative philosophy.

You know the real irony of that saying is that it is actually impossible for someone to literally "pull themselves up from their bootstraps." Just from a scientific / physics perspective, that physically cannot happen.

Not sure why that saying ever became popular to promote a good work ethic. 

That's Just an objectively false statement.

Literally nobody on the left is arguing that people should be able to make a comfortable living doing absolutely nothing and just living off the government. That's a complete myth and outright lie that's perpetuated by conservative media outlets. Welfare just doesn't work that way.

Lefties are typically against bad trade deals that ship American jobs overseas, thus supporting Americans actually working. There are even several leftists out there currently promoting policy for a "Federal Jobs Guarantee" which literally guarantees every American a job.

If you think that support for welfare programs somehow means people support others making a comfortable living while doing nothing, then you clearly are completely misinformed on what the opposing side is actually in favor of here.

So are illegal immigrants "stealing Americans jobs" or "living off government welfare?" It can't be both. Pick one grotesque unfaithful smear and stick with it please.

Also it's literally impossible for someone who's undocumented to sign up for welfare, so yeah, this is just a hateful conservative smear.

Yeah, this is one of those times where Jesus supports people worshiping him as God and lavishing him with gifts over assisting the poor and needy. I'm not defending Jesus here. Jesus supported assisting the poor, but he was also a creepy ass cult leader and the occasional dick.

There's so much wrong with this that I wouldn't even know where to begin...

It's clearly evident that you don't have the first clue what Socialism is despite arguing against it, all while holding a completely distorted view wealthy and powerful.

As I said, Jesus was apolitical. He never expressed any political beliefs.

I really appreciate you being able to carry on a conversation without any personal attacks! Not only is your post informative... at least as far as your mind set is concerned ... it is almost inspirional that you can state your views without any mudslinging. Quite refreshing from what I have experienced with some other posters!

All one really needs to know about socialism is to view what has happened to other countries that have employed its ideology. Venezuela, Russia, Europe, Etc

When I talk about Democrats and socialism I'm not really referring to you and the millions of other Democrats in the population. It is a well-known fact that the Democrats in Congress do not share the view of what is best for America. Like so many Christian pastors you talk about, they are concerned about their own welfare first and their ideology has its roots in Moscow. That is a fact the cannot be overlooked. Capitalism has served our country well and the world for Generations.

Pulling oneself up from one's bootstraps essentially means starting with nothing,  working hard and overcoming obstacles  which only freedom and capitalism provides and no other socialist or economic entity nor any other ideology other than capitalism is capable of.

[Aquila King]

13 minutes ago, joc said:

I really appreciate you being able to carry on a conversation without any personal attacks! Not only is your post informative... at least as far as your mind set is concerned ... it is almost inspirional that you can state your views without any mudslinging. Quite refreshing from what I have experienced with some other posters!

Don't get too excited there bud, we're just getting started. 

In all seriousness though, I've mellowed out quite a bit when it comes to internet debates. I still find a lot of the stuff people say to be bats**t crazy immoral lunacy, but I don't quite care anymore. It just is what is. Nothing I can do to change it really. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So yeah. Don't expect much fire and vitriol from me anymore.

20 minutes ago, joc said:

All one really needs to know about socialism is to view what has happened to other countries that have employed its ideology. Venezuela, Russia, Europe, Etc

Venezuela isn't Socialist. They're a dictatorship with government welfare programs. That's completely different.

Russia is Communist, which is completely different. All Communists are Socialist, but not all Socialists are Communists.

And Europe isn't a country.  (lol, I know what you meant there, just trolling) European countries are Social Democracies, which are basically Capitalist but with strong welfare programs. Closer to Socialism, but not quite there.

Not sure why you'd use Europe as an example of a 'bad' system, since most are thriving relatively well and have been for a number of decades, but whatever.

27 minutes ago, joc said:

It is a well-known fact that the Democrats in Congress do not share the view of what is best for America.

If you mean the more corporately funded centrist dems like Joe Biden or Kamala Harris etc, then yep. You're right. They're beholden to their corporate donors, not the American people.

Dems like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard are a different breed. 

31 minutes ago, joc said:

Capitalism has served our country well and the world for Generations.

Not really. If you'd like to name some supposed examples of this, then be my guest. As for me, I'm drawing a blank.

33 minutes ago, joc said:

Pulling oneself up from one's bootstraps essentially means starting with nothing,  working hard and overcoming obstacles 

The problem is, when you say "nothing" I think you in some sense quite literally mean NOTHING, which just isn't realistic. You've gotta have something starting out and then grow from that. It goes back to that phrase "you've gotta have money to make money."

It's great to start with a little and work your way up to having a lot, but everyone needs that sort of baseline level of support starting out. That's essentially what the social safety net at the bottom is for. (and what I mean by "social safety net" is things like an education, healthcare, minimum wage, social security, etc - basically all the stuff you call "welfare" and "free stuff" that really just exists to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity and nothing more)

Now to sort of tie this back in to the thread's OP...

Christianity and Jesus simply do not have much to say in regards to politics, and express little to no political views. Not to mention the founders of America have explicitly stated on numerous occasions that the US was in no way founded upon the Christian religion. It was in fact the world's first secular nation, where the separation of church and state were clearly established within the first amendment to the Constitution.

If you want to discuss the origins and history of Capitalism vs Socialism in the US, that's a perfectly fine discussion to have. However it really just has little to nothing to do with spirituality or the Christian religion.

[+joc]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The problem is, when you say "nothing" I think you in some sense quite literally mean NOTHING, which just isn't realistic. You've gotta have something starting out and then grow from that. It goes back to that phrase "you've gotta have money to make money."

Well...I did have a guitar and amplifier which I pawned...and the rest is history.

[Aquila King]

 

[+Pettytalk]

Is there any possible truth to this? Did the US Supreme Curt establish a legal precedent with the decision of the case cited below? Or is it all a misunderstanding?

On February 29, 1892, The Supreme Court declared (in Holy Trinity v. United States) that the historical record of America overwhelmingly demonstrated that the United States “… is a Christian nation.” Contrary to this historical and legal record, judges throughout the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries have repeatedly ruled against the place that Christianity has enjoyed in American life. Rather than render decisions consistent with the legal foundation of America, activist judges have taken it upon themselves to attempt to establish a new foundation for American law—that being the subjective opinions of liberal activist judges. Thousands of pieces of evidence exist that demonstrate that America was founded as a Christian nation, and Holy Trinity v. United States is only one of the many pieces of that mosaic of historical truth.

Justice Joseph Story

Because of his profound influence upon the character of the Supreme Court, Joseph Story is regarded (along with several other prominent judges) as a “Father of American Jurisprudence.” Remembered for his opinion in The Amistad case and his renown literary work, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Joseph Story served on the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845. Justice Story left no doubt concerning the role of Christianity in the origin of America:

One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is, that Christianity is part of the Common Law, from which it seeks the sanction of its rights, and by which it endeavors to regulate its doctrines. . . There never has been a period, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations.[1]

And in his widely influential Commentaries on the Constitution, he writes:

Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. . . Massachusetts, . . . has promulgated in her BILL OF RIGHTS the importance and necessity of the public support of religion, and the worship of God . . . The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity . .

The above is from an article contained on an internet site I ran into while researching for this thread I started. But I don't know if I should post the link. One can google for Holy Trinity v. United States, and also for Judge Joseph Story, and eventually would get to a link for the site.  And that is how I ended up with seeing the article, and from which I have posted some of the contents (italics).

[Aquila King]

9 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Is there any possible truth to this?

No. The United States of America is not nor ever has been founded upon the Christian religion; not in any way, shape, or form.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

— First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Quote

We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

— Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty

Quote

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

— U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1797

Quote

When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

—Justice John Paul Stevens

Quote

The United States, in short, was not founded to be an officially Christian nation or to espouse any official religion. Our government is neutral on religious matters, leaving such decisions to individuals. This democratic and pluralistic system has allowed a broad array of religious groups to grow and flourish and guarantees every individual American the right to determine his or her own spiritual path or to reject religion entirely. As a result of this policy, Americans enjoy more religious freedom than any people in world history. We should be proud of this accomplishment and work to preserve the constitutional principle that made it possible separation of church and state.

https://www.au.org/resources/publications/is-america-a-christian-nation

No if, ands, or buts. The entire premise of your argument here (and the thread itself) is unfortunately a prevalent belief among fundamentalist Christian radicals in this country who wish to re-write history, but it is a provably false premise that has been debunked time and time again.

You're objectively wrong. The US has never been a Christian nation. It is a secular nation. Plain and simple.

[Alchopwn]

Jefferson was pretty mealy mouthed on the matter.  I think he was a Deist not a theist, and maybe not even a Deist.  For all his redeeming qualities, Jefferson could be an awful hypocrite.  I suppose it goes with the territory of being a politician and trying to appeal to people whose views you consider a bit of a disgrace, but whose vote you need anyhow.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Alchopwn