I'm pretty sure that it's dharma who says it (or maybe its is someone else here on JU, but it's not a "shades" original is what I'm trying to say), but Christianity does not have a monopoly on morals and values. I know plenty of moral and ethical people who are not Christians. In fact, just from JU -- I'd say that JillUser, Draginol, Karma, and Tex (among others) are all shining examples of productive moral members of our society who are not practicing Christians. (PS. I hope I didn't offend anyone for singling you out).

In fact, just from JU -- I'd say that JillUser, Draginol, Karma, and Tex (among others) are all shining examples of productive moral members of our society who are not practicing Christians

I agree with you here Shades. I have lots of "moral" friends that are not Christian. They are very nice, kind, lovely people. I enjoy their company and have great relationships with them. But at the same time, it's not the same or at the same deep level that I share with my brothers and sisters in Christ. We have a connection (regardless of denomination) that supercedes any other kind of human relationship outside of marital or parental. Most of us are in complete agreement that the relationships with our non-Christian familiy member pale in comparison. The spiritual connection runs deeper than the physical blood ties do.

No, the point is that this nation is so weak and shallow without Christianity that the nation cannot survive.

actually many of the founding fathers believed this to be true and wrote about it. They believed if we swayed away from these principles we would surely collapse. It's like me taking a shovel and ax, furiously chopping and chipping away , to the foundation of my house. How long do I expect the underpinings of the house without the foundation to stay stable and upright?

Yes, well you may want to review how well that has worked out through history. It doesn't have such a sterling track record ya know and doesn't leave a lot of ground for Christians to be going around insulting other people's religions.

ya know Mason....gotta luv ya! Why do you always take this side of the so called "Christian" history or so called Christian behavior? I don't think or see that anyone really has insulted anyone's religion here. This was a watershed moment in the Senate and many people are outraged. Only a couple or a few Christians showed up to protest. The rest were all home, like me...praying for our nation.

I believe all religions should be treated fairly and respectfully, but I believe that we should honor our beginnings and continue in the faith of our fathers as far as the Nation is concerned. I don't believe anything unconstitional was done here but I am disturbed that NOT one Senator (to my knowledge) has spoken up. As far as I know they are all avoiding this subject like the plague.

sooooooo what do you think about the guy who made like a tree and branched out....all the way to the bank....?

Always? Interesting. Perhaps because it's the truth?



Really?



This implies that the moral standards of other religions are somehow inferior, and happens to be the comment to which I was responding. If that isn't insulting I don't know what is.

You may wish to forget the factual history of Christianity but most of us prefer to remain in reality so stop assuming that I am somehow attacking all Christians and tossing out your poorly veiled personal attacks. Frankly, it just makes you look foolish.

See, I look at this the exact opposite way. I say, "Thank goodness my Senators (who are otherwise pretty useless political hacks) have stood up for the traditions this country was built upon - freedom and tolerance."

As far as I can tell, yes.



I thought so too.



well, I wouldn't say so, that's why I mentioned it in the first place.



ya, really. Unless you believe every protest is an insult. Then I'd agree with you.



Well then show us differently. It seems that way to us Mason including what you said here.



Nobody is forcing anyone to worship in a Christian way SC. We've opened the Senate session with a monotheistic prayer since the 1700's with one exception (I believe) before this. Why the change now?



well the founding fathers thought so.

"The ethics, doctrines and examples furnished by Christianity exhibit the best models for the law." DeWitt Clinton, Signer of the Declaration; address to the American Bible Society May 8, 1823

All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon (the Bible)
must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the
wreck of these systems but the world itself."

– Benjamin Rush, Jan. 23, 1807

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world."
-- President John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 25, 1813

Appropos to all the talk about the Founding Fathers, this is an interesting opinion piece.

[link]http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070713/cm_thenation/15213811;_ylt=An8UHWmR4LaqP_YmbAL4viP9wxIF[link] <

The precept to do no harm is based in complete and unconditional love for all living things. Christians do not have a corner on the love market. Hinduism is based on love; Buddhism is based on love. Not the concept of love, not the notion of love, but the practice of love. Moreover, one of the major differences is that both Hinduism and Buddhism are more practices than belief systems (although, in the former there is an extensive belief system).

All religions have clear moral and ethical standards. Its a pity that intolerance makes it so difficult for some to allow themselves to be present through the prayer of another's faith.

once again i ask how and why did all these devout christian men--each of whom being so completely convinced the best government could only be the sorta dominionist theocracy you claim they intended--manage to spend so much time and effort authoring a constitution without a single reference to or mention of god or the bible?

an oversight?

da devil made em do it?

whatever comfort you derive from the sort of connection you've described is totally irrelevant to this issue. one need not be nice, kind, lovely nor christian to be an ethical person or maintain a moral existence.

Your lack of research or understanding is hardly my concern.



Yes, it is far easier to simply disregard more than 1,000 years of history, isn't it? Intelligent people remember and learn from history instead of pretending it never happened.



Inferring that the moral standards of others is substandard is most certainly an insult. Sad that you are too blinded by theocratic bigotry to see that.



I am hardly obligated to agree with your or anyone else's statements simply because you or they claim to be a Christian. Those who have been here a long time and have my read my earlier articles regarding my own personal beliefs regarding Christianity and Faith (note I do not say religion) already know my stance. I can't abide such blind religious zealotry or narrow minded intolerance regardless of who is it coming from. Frankly, it is this sort of thing that gives Christians a bad name in my opinion.



Firstly, that hardly establishes that all of the founding fathers thought this way, and secondly, despite their own personal religious beliefs they still had the wisdom to ensure the religious freedom for all citizens of all religions and to refrain from imposing their personal beliefs upon the people through the government so as to avoid any hint of a theocracy. Simply put the United States of America is not a theocracy nor should it be, therefore the public expression of all religions is both acceptable and legal in this nation, including in the Senate and House.

Attempting to suppress such freedom of religious expression can only open the door to your own freedoms ultimately being denied so be careful what you wish for. If enough of an uproar is made about this the only possible end result under our constitution will be to abolish any sort of prayer from any religion in these sessions. Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Politics (and religion) do make strange bedfellows.

Very true, and hence my earlier statement of all of them springing from a common precept. Or time and area.

All religions have problems. And all have assets that attract some of us. When it comes right down to it, perhaps all are the same, but the interpretation of each - by man - is what makes them different in practice. I do not think any religion is pure and non-tainted by the imperfection of man in interpreting the message of our loving God. So we each (with the exception of Atheists who reject the notion of a God) must choose the one that is closest to what we believe is God's pure message.

I will not say that it was an accident that man could not understand the pure message, as in all religions, there is a belief that God made man as an imperfect image of himself. He must have done so for a reason. Perhaps that was so that we could find the path to his message through different means. Thus expanding the outreach to people with different backgrounds and experiences.

Mason, it seems that you have latched onto the relativist idea of religious indifferentism. Think about it. Do you really believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wiccanism is equal to Christianity?

By what standard?

well put...beat me to the punch.