Christian Nation?

My Recent Posts

Before you start to get your hackles up in defense of the "have you been saved" pitch please hear this.  I have no desire to convert anyone or to preach a particular creed. If we are to talk in the terms of religion, as opposed to faith which is something different, I am undeclared, non-aligned, unaffiliated.  I am an agnostic. Or maybe I'm a pagan. It depends on who is writing the definitions, I suppose. That having been said I still have formed ideas about the questions of spirituality and faith and it's rightful place in our society. Even without holding any vested interest in one or another I am still appalled at the relentless assault upon faith and those who choose to practice a faith in their lives.

 

In the prevailing "progressive" mindset that resides in left leaning politics, academia and media it has become the fashionable thing to scoff at and disparage religion and faith in general and it's practitioners specifically.  Any person who declares their faith openly is characterized as some ignorant, backwoods rube who asserts that each and every word in the Bible is the inspired word of God and is to be taken literally, right down to the last Thou and Thine. I won't try to claim that there are not those of that variety. I've met them, they are a little creepy for my liking, but all in all I think they are mostly harmless. The attempt to characterize any who hold their faith as an important aspect of their lives as belonging to some blindly following sect is dishonest and clearly hostile in it's intent.

 

The evangelical Christian is the preferred target for this contempt, but this hostility extends to Christianity as a whole, equating any identifying as Christian as falling into the evangelical category. Oddly there are many who have adopted this attitude towards Christianity who at the same time seem to be only too willing to play hands off with Islam. Often this is taken the step further to laud the sanctity of that holy faith and extension of added consideration and protection to the rights of Muslims to practice freely.  These same people are conveniently able to turn a blind eye to the tenets of Sharia law and radical clerics that are in clear contradiction of those other progressive virtues of diversity, tolerance and equality for all. It is a clear contradiction, but one which can easily be explained.

 

The radical elements of Islam have hijacked the faith as a vehicle to their own sinister ends. They have openly declared war upon the infidels of the west, Christian and Jew alike. You can try to pretend that this is not so but it does not change the fact.  For the progressive, leftist, statist, whatever you may care to call them it is another inconvenient truth.  For the further purposes of this discussion I'll simply refer to them as "the left".  They know that the jihadis have defined the terms of engagement and they have accepted it. They just can't bring themselves to admit it because doing so plunges them through a trap door of their own making.  To acknowledge openly that the jihad has declared war upon Christianity and to then move to defend our culture (not religion) against it places them in the very uncomfortable position of being the de facto defenders of the Christian faith.  For the progressive this simply will not do because Christianity is a rival church.  Though it is not spoken their position in practice has become an embrace of the idea that " the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

The left is unable to separate cultural legacy from the religious practice.  One does not have to march under the banners of Christian Knights to defend what is a historically Christian culture against that which means to bring it's end.  The jihadis have in fact borrowed a page from the left's own playbook. The left in trying to advance any of their ideology will meet any opposition by demonizing the opponent. As an example let's consider affirmative action preferences in granting admission to state universities. It is not possible to discuss much less debate this with the leftist on the merits of the policy. Any opposition is immediately characterized as racist. They simply redefine the terms of engagement in a manner which puts their opponent into a defensive posture.  By defining their jihad as a war against religious infidels the Islamist terror syndicate has done exactly the same thing.

 

Western society is comprised of secular states which just so happen to have been formed out of a Christian cultural heritage. This heritage does not, however, define western society as theocratic. If you know history you will no doubt be a aware that this was true at one time. The Roman Church was the center of political power for long years. There was the Holy Roman Empire. There were the dynastic lines of the early western states who pledged their allegiance to Rome and furnished armies to wage the crusades. We all know this, but it is history. It is in the past, that is not how things are now. As a society we have outgrown this form of social order. The Church, in fact now many churches, still exists, but they are not in charge of the state. Membership is not compulsory and heresy ( at least religious heresy) is no longer an offense which may be punishable by the state.

 

In the Islamic world (we will call it that by virtue of their cultural heritage) is another story entirely.  It is comprised of states that are nominally secular in the sense that they have boundaries, a hierarchy of authority vested in the state, a construct of civil law, etc.  They may have some of the characteristics of the secular state, the same as say perhaps 13th century France. By that time France had developed as a secular state, but the ruling house of France still owed fealty to Rome. Many of the states of the Islamic world have either not advanced beyond this stage, or in some instances have reverted to it. The most striking example of this is in the state of Iran.  Iran is an outright theocracy. They present a cosmetically secular face, but the authority rests with the Mullahs. In Islamic states which are not overt theocracies their civil law is often an adoption of the religious law of Sharia. This code of law is enforced in varying degrees depending on the country, but the outward signs of it are everywhere. With precious few exceptions women are relegated to second class status in the Islamic world. For a religion to prescribe this would be one matter because, at least in theory anyway, religion is a choice.  In the vast majority of Islamic states the religious law is enforceable under their civil law, or the religious authority has the tacit approval of the state to conduct their own form of justice. Would any of this be permitted in western society?

 

Sadly there are instances where these practices have been permitted in the west. Sharia courts have been tolerated by western governments to placate the demand of a growing muslim population. This can not be tolerated. It is not a question of any religious discrimination. The practices under these laws are a clear and direct contradiction of our civil law. If a cult of ancient Aztecs were to seek asylum in the west and claim the right to perform human sacrifices under the protection of religious tradition would that be permitted? No! Why? Well because it is contrary to our civil law, which in a secular society holds greater authority than any religious law.  If there are peaceable muslims that wish to come and live in western societies, retain the practice of their personal faith while respecting our civil laws and practices then fine. Let them come. If they want sharia law they should stay home. And as long as the potential exists for the more radical elements of Islam to secret themselves into their communities to infiltrate the west to some ill purpose, muslims have to expect that they will be subjected to additional measures of scrutiny. Again, if that is a problem for you then don't come.

 

In many respects Christian churches have surrendered much of their social mission to the state. For much of our nation's history there were no federal or state programs to serve as the social safety net. Those who fell upon difficult times either struggled to rise above it or if they obtained assistance that came through a church organization, whatever their particular affiliation may have been. The rise of the statists brought this largely to an end. To be sure there are still church organizations who do much to aid those in difficult circumstances, but they are no longer the primary source for this kind of aid. That role has been co-opted by the state.  Where assistance was once provided with the counsel against poor choices and discretion was permitted to revoke this where the recipient made no effort to correct their errors, the state positioned itself as the benefactor and salvation without judgement. Want to have six children before the age of twenty-five with no father in the home and no visible means of support? No problem! We'll gladly pay for these children, why it's the Christian thing to do, isn't it?

 

The biggest bat in the arsenal of the left where it concerns their battle with faith comes in the form of their mantra "separation of Church and State".  This is another case where they have conveniently redefined the language to suit their own purpose.  The constitution does not say that anything associated with faith in any way whatsoever must at any cost be kept strictly removed from any state entity. That is their interpretation. What the constitution does actually say on this topic is that the state shall not establish an official religion, i.e. no state sponsored church. If there were more Americans who acquainted themselves with the history of our English forebearers they would know that the purpose of this particular provision in our constitution was to avoid the bloody sectarian battles waged in the name of either the Roman Church or the Church of England ( see Charles I ; regicide ).  When these loons raise an uproar for a Christmas tree or a Nativity display on state grounds they only demonstrate their ignorance. In the case of the Christmas tree, as with so many other supposedly Christian icons, it is in fact a pagan tradition that was handily adopted by the Church to gain acceptance from the early European heathens.

 

When we defend those institutions which have some religious origin it is not a defense of or a promotion of the religion or any sect thereof. It is the simple acknowledgement of a cultural heritage which, whether one likes it or not, is rooted deeply in Judeo-Christian tradition and history.  To recognize and accept this is not for the purpose of endorsing a particular church. It is not for the exclusion of any who may not share in that heritage. It's our heritage and we should not try to rewrite history to placate a few malcontents because they are "offended". The irony is that most of those who are wailing the loudest are native born Americans. For any coming into a western country who were not aware that this is a culturally Christian society I would say that perhaps you should have done more homework on this before arriving.

 

Religions and their churches, the church hierarchies, are a human creation, not divine. Churches have historically, and to a certain extent still are, political entities. They are a vehicle for the exercise of power, plain and simple. Faith is the manifestation of one's spirituality.  Although we may not agree with another person's interpretation of this the freedom of conscience encoded in our constitution allows for the individual's free practice thereof. It does not say that you have to believe it. In fact it doesn't say that you have to believe anything.

 

To say that I am an agnostic does not mean that I do not believe in God. I may not believe in your god, or Chaim's god or Abdul's god. What many reconcile themselves to as an entity that somehow resembles a human form and resides in some other plane of existence called heaven is their means of understanding the power or forces that are beyond our understanding. What one man may call the will of God I call the will of nature. There are things beyond our control and beyond our ability to understand. You may call it what you will.

 

Comments

Dino Manalis Added Jul 22, 2017 - 9:59am
The freedom of religion is equally the right to express one's faith openly and freely without discrimination.  Faith gives us hope and endurance in all the uncertainty and volatility.  While I'm opposed to imposing religion on anyone, there's nothing wrong to talk about America's Christian roots, for example, it's our historical foundation.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 22, 2017 - 10:30am
Indeed. The defense of what we are is not the defense of what we were. In some ways, though, we do need to get back to what we were. We need to return the country to the kind of rule and vision of a republic as formed by Jefferson, Madison and others of our founders. I find it a specious argument from those who say " Yes, but the world has changed so much since then! It's outdated now!"
 
Yes, the world has changed, but human nature has not. The constitution was written with a view to restraining those less desirable elements of human nature as can be manifest through government. Jefferson and others understood human nature and knew that given the path of history there would always be those who would try to repeat it. 
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 22, 2017 - 10:31am
Great article Burghal. Exactly right on the separation of church and state- that the founders wanted no more religious wars the likes of which had separated and bankrupted Europe. Additionally, the founders of the U.S., unknown to many people, were told that the king ruled by divine right, that it was God's will that the king ruled, and that by instituting democracy, they were going to Hell under no uncertain terms. This is why the ideas of the Enlightenment were not universally embraced; they threatened the powers that were, being the aristocracy of Europe, as well as the church, who, along with the aristocracy, had an incestuous relationship for centuries, holding the power for themselves.
The founders of this nation thew all of those ideas under the bus. The inequality that the monarchies had encumbered the population with were gone in the new democracy. Before, unless you were born into aristocracy, you were a serf, and all you could hope for were the scraps off the tables of the royals. America gave everyone (at least in theory) an equal chance, and surely more of an equal chance than they had could ever hope to have in Europe or England.
Regarding Sharia law, bear in mind that the U.S., by shunning the divine right of kings, pretty much abandoned religion-based law and the people who made the laws, and those were the aristocracy and the church, who made laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the ordinary people. From the signing of the constitution, laws would be made by the people, not the pope or the church. I think people who base law strictly on religion are several centuries behind the Enlightenment. The Americans saw what religious-based law did, and shunned it. I think they made the right choice.
 
Leroy Added Jul 22, 2017 - 10:32am
Where do you draw the line?  If a community erects a nativity scene at Christmas, isn't it tantamount to establishing a religion?  It is using public fund to promote a particular religion.  It doesn't matter that it was a pagan custom adopted by Christianity.
 
 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jul 22, 2017 - 10:50am
TBH
 
Excellent. You've said it all.
 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jul 22, 2017 - 10:52am
BTW: The will of nature. "Will" or not will always be an open question. Maybe we're better off not knowing. It would drive us nuts :))
Jeff Jackson Added Jul 22, 2017 - 10:57am
Free expression could mean a cross, a star of David, a moon, or whatever symbol one wants, all on the same lawn. The only rule is that if one can, so can the others. All of the symbols sitting side by side are the representation of a nation that respects the religions of its citizenry and the amiable relationship that the various religions of that nation have. This is opposed to nations where you cannot build a Christian church, and believe me they're out there. America respects religion, we just do not allow it to take over the government, as it had in Europe and England and as it still is in certain parts of the world.
If you look at those parts of the world that only allow one religion, they are almost always abusive to women and minorities, whether by race or birth, region, or class. I will consent to the nativity, and offer any other religion the same right to express their religion. Fair is fair, free is free, to practice any religion, or none at all.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 22, 2017 - 11:20am
Jeff - you answered it well
 
Leroy - Where to draw the line is a good question.  In the case of Christmas it is a little different, I think, and this is what makes it an easy target for those whose motives are primarily just to stir up the shitstorm.
 
Let me put it this way. If city hall put up a cross at the entry of or to the building for the week between Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday  then yes. It would only be in the sense of it's symbolism, but a legitimate case could be made that this was inappropriate for the setting. Would it rise to the level of it being a violation of the Constitution? Wellllll..... maybe. That could be argued.
 
In the case of Christmas it is a bit different. First of all there is the word itself. Kind of hard to avoid that, isn't it? But that alone does not make it a "religious expression". It is simply a vestige of old language which has managed to survive until today.
 
I'm going to give you another example of a word in this category that will make the social justice warriors just want to spit! What is one of their favorite tags for anyone who disagrees with their gospel? If you oppose affirmative action, for example you are a?
Bigot. That is one of their favorite words. Well here is a little history lesson for all of the snowflakes out there. The word bigot comes to the English language courtesy of our linguistic cousins, the Germans. It comes from the German bei Gott, or as rendered in English by God. And the original usage of the term? It was a word used to describe a religious hypocrite. Look it up gang, I don't make this shit up.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 22, 2017 - 11:20am
but to continue...
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 22, 2017 - 11:25am
Christmas, as it is recognized and celebrated has become another of those vestiges of a christian cultural tradition. In fact it is officially recognized as a federal holiday. It has been bestowed secular validity as a holiday, despite it's christian origin. Even though there remains some association it is generally understood that in practice, for a great number of Americans, celebrated as a primarily secular holiday. It's a boon for retailers' 4th quarter profits. I don't mean to sound crass, or to disparage those who still mark the day as a solemn observance of their faith. But it is what it is...
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 22, 2017 - 11:29am
So is there an issue with putting up a nativity scene? It's okay to put In God we Trust on our currency. Is it different? Maybe, since it doesn't say "what" god, but then if that did not connote a christian god by virtue of our heritage, then why would anyone object to it being on there. In case you havent heard? Someone has. More than once
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 22, 2017 - 11:33am
So if the local mayor or council wants to put out a nativity scene on city property during the holiday season I say its not an issue. Certainly not a breach of the Constitution. And the correct response should anyone object is, as Jeff said, let it be known that others are welcome to include their symbols as well. It applies for all or it can apply for none
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 22, 2017 - 11:45am
Stone -
 
I think there is much better left beyond our hands
Leroy Added Jul 22, 2017 - 11:48am
TBH, you didn't answer it fully.  Yes, so others are able to do the same.  Must they do it with their own funds or must they be afforded government funds just as the city did for the navitivy scene.
 
Your answer has a lot of ramifications.  It was fine when no one complained.  Today, there is always someone to complain.  The internet has shrunk the world.  If some city in Bumcrap, Nowhere puts up a nativity scene, the world knows about it.  The ACLU goes into high gear.
 
I think it was better when a Christian or other community could reflect the values of the community.  An example would be opening the day with the Lord's Prayer.  Can't do that anymore.  The only solution I see is school vouchers.  Atheists would be much more understanding if the Christian School was the best in town.
John G Added Jul 22, 2017 - 5:53pm
Paranoid islamophobic nonsense.
Our troops and weapons are in their lands conducting mass slaughter.
The USA/UK have committed genocide in Iraq and are well on their way in Syria, Libya and Yemen.
There is no one in islam that can declare war on its behalf.
You are delusional and warped by childish propaganda.
opher goodwin Added Jul 23, 2017 - 1:32am
Burghal - an interesting, thought-provoking article - if a little lengthy and rambley.
As an antitheist atheist I don't believe in any god and would rather all religions, which I consider to be manmade, wither and die. I think they all do more harm than good. But I defend the right of anybody to have their own faith with the caveats that they should not promote violence, division, force their views on others or indoctrinate children.
Yes I do see that we have a Western culture that has largely emanated from Christianity. Though that Christianity was in the past neither tolerant or benign. It set up theocracies that were cruel, sadistic and tyrannically repressive. Reading Wolf Hall makes for salutary reading.
The legacy we have left of a society that is secular and possessing freedoms, tolerance and democracy is well worth defending - imperfect as it is.
Islam presents a culture that I find repressive, controlling and indoctrinating. It is probably the worst of the lot in my opinion. It is firmly based in medieval culture of 1300 years ago, is intolerant, repressive, indoctrinational and misogynistic. Having just travelled to a number of Muslim countries I have seen the attitudes first-hand. The Maldives - where you are only allowed to be Muslim and no other religion is tolerated. Oman - where women were invisible. Egypt - where they are still using horse and carts. All Muslim countries - where women are encased in heavy black cloth in the searing heat. Not pleasant to see.
Islam does interfere with the state and freedoms - it sets up theocracies and limits freedoms. Sharia law is, or can be, barbaric.
Having said that the Western wars have been illegal and have not only resulted in millions of deaths but have stoked up the worst fanatical side of Islam and set the world back decades. It has radicalised Islam. My Islamic friends from the sixties and seventies were thoroughly westernised. They still practiced Islam but they accepted western culture and were assimilated. That is not the case now. They adopt medieval costume and reject western culture and values. We have radicalised them.
I would stand up for the values of Western culture (not just the USA by the way) against all religious intrusion. The biggest present threat being Islam.
opher goodwin Added Jul 23, 2017 - 2:26am
Burghal - It appears that I cannot access my profile or put up new posts at present. Something is wrong. I don't know if it's my computer or this site. Are you having problems too?
Paul Robbins Added Jul 23, 2017 - 5:46am
I am amazed that so many comments are empty of Truth in regard to faith in One God, expressed in the Bible  as God the Father, God the Son ,and God the Holy Spirit.  
 
Allah is not God .   I saw a comment somewhere that they are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the Truth.
 
For all of your comments, let me ask a question; have you studied the Scriptures?  We will all face God.  
Paul Robbins Added Jul 23, 2017 - 5:52am
A Propositional Truth
Just as the Bible does not set out to prove the existence of God but states it as propositional truth, the Bible also states the doctrine of the Trinity as propositional truth. According to Scripture, the Trinity is the one true, living, and eternal God, who is composed of three united persons of one substance and power, without separate existence. The triune God is revealed in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Key passages supporting the doctrine of the Trinity include Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:19, John 5:19, John 14:16, 2 Corinthians 13:14, James 2:19, and 1 John 5:7.
Although the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity is plainly taught in its pages. But the Trinity is a doctrine that human wisdom cannot fully comprehend or explain. It can only be accepted on the basis of God's propositional revelation in His Word.
Not Three Gods, But One
The one true God presented in Scripture is not three Gods, but one. God is one in essence, but three in persons, the three persons forming a single unity. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father (Psalm 2:7, John 1:14-18, 1 John 4:9), and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son (John 15:26, Galatians 4:6). Each Person of the Godhead has a unique role in the Covenant of Redemption described in Ephesians chapter 1 - the Father choosing a people for Himself, the Son accomplishing their redemption from sin, the Holy Spirit applying the work of redemption to individuals.
Not Only a New Testament Doctrine
The Trinity is not only a New Testament doctrine. It is very much an Old Testament teaching as well. At various places in the Old Testament, God is referred to as a unity ("I") but at the same time a plurality ("us") - e.g., Genesis 3:22, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8. Among the Hebrew names for God in the Old Testament, the plural name Elohimis used over 2,000 times. It is Elohim - the triune God - who created the heavens and the earth and everything in them (Genesis 1:1-2:22), who gave the Ten Commandments to Moses (Exodus 20), who says, "I am God, there is no one else" (Isaiah 46:9, and who is denied by the professed atheist (Psalm 14:1, 53:1).1
God is identified as the Father in passages such as Deuteronomy 32:6, Isaiah 63:16, and Malachi 2:10. God is identified as the Son in Psalm 2. God is identified as the Spirit in many passages including Genesis 1:2, 1 Samuel 10:10, 1 Samuel 19:20-23, 2 Samuel 23:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 51:11, Micah 2:7, and Zechariah 7:12.
Both the Old and New Testaments include Trinitarian statements, such as Isaiah 48:16, where the Messiah speaks of Jehovah as having sent Messiah into the world, with His Spirit; the baptismal command of Matthew 28:19; and the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in John 14:16-21.
The Importance of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity is not merely a technicality. It is essential Christian truth. To believe in the God of the Bible is to believe in the Trinity. To not believe in the Trinity is to not believe in the God of the Bible.
To believe in God the Father is to believe in the One who raised Jesus Christ from the dead (Galatians 1:1), the One who has delivered believers from the power of darkness and conveyed them into the kingdom of the Son of His love (Colossians 1:13).
To believe in God the Son is to believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal God made flesh, and thus qualified to be the perfect sacrifice to redeem sinners from the curse through His blood (Colossians 1:14), the One who now reigns in Heaven (Acts 2:36, 7:55-56), who is the Head of the church (Colossians 1:18), and will come again to judge the world (Matthew 25:33-46, 2 Timothy 4:1).
To believe in God the Holy Spirit is to believe in the One who is the Author of all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21), the One who brought about the virgin birth of Christ (Matthew 1:20), the One who brings every believer to life in Christ (John 3:5-6, Titus 3:4-7), who lives in every believer (1 Corinthians 3:16), and instructs every believer in the true faith (1 Corinthians 2:6-16).
Any church that denies or diminishes the Trinity, or teaches a doctrine of the Trinity that is contrary to the doctrine as taught in the pages of Scripture, teaches a false god and jeopardizes souls. Any church that neglects the doctrine of the Trinity, or does not teach it in its fullness, robs its people of the essential understanding of the God they worship and serve, and places them in danger of falling into deeper error, and departure from the faith.
opher goodwin Added Jul 23, 2017 - 6:45am
Paul - I think you will find that a number of us have read the scriptures but don't believe in them. We think they were written by men a long time ago and are not relevant today, if they ever were.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 23, 2017 - 7:00am
Paul - Yes I am familiar. Thank you for sharing. I'm happy for you that this works for you, but please save your pitch for someone else. I don't condemn it, I will defend your right to practice what you believe and yes you even have a right to try to spread the message. I likewise have the right to accept or reject it.  
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 23, 2017 - 7:10am
Opher - Yes I was also having some troubles with the site.  
 
As per the topic...  You have your belief system. As I understand it your belief system is arrived through a process of reason. You have not just accepted everything as it has been handed to you, which I think is wise. Out of this you have formed some strong opinions and at times these come out unfiltered. I think thats okay because I can still talk with you and usually we end up finding some level of agreement.
 
Your wish that these ideologies will "wither and die"I have no doubt will come to pass. We have witnessed this process in our lifetimes and it continues. It is something that is so deeply intertwined through our history and in our cultures that this can only happen as a process, not an "event".  Leave it be and it will happen. Efforts to hasten the process will only meet with resistance.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 23, 2017 - 7:17am
Leroy -
 
Sorry for the delay in response. As referenced above I was experiencing some technical issues.
 
The last question you raised is not difficult to answer I think. I can easily envision the scenario. Any sensible administrator at that point would just say " Ok folks! Forget it, take it all down. You all decided that you had to make things complicated, I tried to offer accommodation and that wasn't good enough, which tells me a lot about your motives. So go and set up your own damned displays and a Merry Frickin' Christmas to you!"
 
Well, thats what I would do anyway.  Guess I'm unsuited for public office. Thats okay, dont want the job anyway!
 
Doug Plumb Added Jul 23, 2017 - 8:15am
re "But the Trinity is a doctrine that human wisdom cannot fully comprehend or explain. It can only be accepted on the basis of God's propositional revelation in His Word."
 
The Trinity is a schemata for how things are in Christianity. The bible is a law book and the Trinity is a concept of law, as well as in theology. Its important in the physical world because its a key aspect of common law. It is is also the idea that is hated the most, in the most hated religion, Christianity. Christianity preserves common law. I make videos about this on YouTube. I'm soon to be releasing a reasoned explanation of Christianity and science called "Dialectic" on YouTube. I have one out already, but this is sort of a movie that explains a concept clearly so that the one I already did can be better understood.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 23, 2017 - 8:21am
re "So if the local mayor or council wants to put out a nativity scene on city property during the holiday season I say its not an issue. Certainly not a breach of the Constitution. And the correct response should anyone object is, as Jeff said, let it be known that others are welcome to include their symbols as well. It applies for all or it can apply for none  "
  The Nativity scene at Christians displayed on all public buildings should be LAW. Because it represents the law and is about the law.
 The single greatest achievement in propaganda that these commies ever did was to take the law completely out of mans consciousness and put it directly into the hands of the international bankersters BAR association.
  Now people do not even know what law is and think it is handed down to them from intellectuals who are the guardians of humanity.
Doug Plumb Added Jul 23, 2017 - 8:24am
The law as we know it is fundamentally Jewish. We are losing Christian law and it is being replaced by Jewish law through debt. Under Jewish law, Christians do not have breathing rights.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 23, 2017 - 9:17am
And Doug I suppose by your reasoning this explains why Jews have big noses? Thanks for reading and commenting. Just not sure what you are saying and have to wonder if you are either.
Leroy Added Jul 23, 2017 - 9:40am
" Ok folks! Forget it, take it all down. You all decided that you had to make things complicated, I tried to offer accommodation and that wasn't good enough, which tells me a lot about your motives. So go and set up your own damned displays and a Merry Frickin' Christmas to you!"
 
LOL.  That pretty much sums it up for me too.
 
As my dad said when asked to run for public office, "When you run for office, you find out who your true friends are."  He didn't want to find out.  Neither do I. 
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 23, 2017 - 9:46am
In public office friendship is predicated by need
Leroy Added Jul 23, 2017 - 9:49am
"Having said that the Western wars have been illegal and have not only resulted in millions of deaths but have stoked up the worst fanatical side of Islam and set the world back decades."
 
No offense, Opher, but that it is the silliest thing you have ever said.  Illegal by what standard?  Why have the Western wars been illegal and, by implication, those started by others have not been. What makes the Muslim aggression throughout history more legal?  What makes the Western world's response to hundreds of years of unchecked Muslim aggression-the Crusades-more legal?  What made Hitler's war illegal, for that manner?
 
You certainly have the right to believe what you want, but there is a degree of arrogance in your beliefs, especially when it comes to children.  You seem to believe your parents knew the correct way, as well as yourself, and other parents do not.  You border on suggesting that there should be laws preventing parents from indoctrinating their children with religion.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jul 23, 2017 - 9:55am
I would say this. Though the motives for western involvement in the region may be suspect and the conduct of that involvement ill advised at times, this hardly equates to a western ownership for their radicalism. It is just as often targeted at their own people. Is that our fault too? I should think not
Paul Robbins Added Jul 23, 2017 - 1:03pm
Many may have read the Scriptures-- but many have not understood the Scriptures.... many close their eyes to the only Truth we will know in this life and beyond.
Do you want eternal Life?  I did not write the Bible but I know it is true...much prophecy(s) made a long time ago has/have come to fruition many years later.   There is so much evidence of God in answered prayer and unanswered prayer.  Have you heard testimonies by people still living?  The Bible is full of Knowledge ,  given to us by a living everlasting God.  
opher goodwin Added Jul 23, 2017 - 1:10pm
Burghal - it is what happens with all religions. They wither and die. One minute everyone is prepared to martyr themselves for this or that god and then they are gone.
Human history is littered with thousands of gods all purporting to be the genuine article. We are no longer worshipping Apollo, Zeus or the others. They are quaint relics stuck in the bin of history. Yet people died for those gods too.
opher goodwin Added Jul 23, 2017 - 1:13pm
Doug - the bible is a rambling document compounded out of all the bits the Nicine conference decided to leave in - a hotch-potch - no coherence at all.
Patrick Writes Added Jul 23, 2017 - 8:08pm
I've been staying out of this out interest to see where comments would go. 
 
@Leroy - your question, I'll answer it for you:
 
"No offense, Opher, but that it is the silliest thing you have ever said.  Illegal by what standard?  "
 
It's illegal by a Christian standard and by "international law" (which is based on Western, Christian standards). Did the Viking acknowledge a "war is bad, should only be for a last resort"? Or does the Islamic world? Or in India or China?
 
Example (my understanding): Chinese culture seeks to avoid war for practical reasons based on their long history. But not for moral reasons, "war, unless for last resort, is immoral" concepts in Western culture. But because it brings "turmoil" which can result in death and an evil dictator in the end. 
Patrick Writes Added Jul 23, 2017 - 8:17pm
@Opher - The fact that you're evoking the "Christianity was made up at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. - and the Bible rewritten subsequently" myth tells me all I need to know about where you stand. 
 
Most of the books of the New Testament written by Saul of Tarsus (who wrote most of them) date to the first century A.D., or early second century A.D. That's well over 200 years before the Council of Nicea. 

The Gospel of Mark dates to the mid 60's A.D. There are very minor differences between the oldest copies we have and the Book of Mark in the Bible (for instance, someone later may have chucked on the last few verses, the original manuscript may have ended with the disciples finding the empty tomb). But most study bible tells you this, right in the text. It's not some secret people are trying to hide. 
 
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke date to with 10-30 years of Mark. Most agree John dates a little later (around the turn of the 1st century). 
 
So...........you've got the vast majority of the New Testament written by the end of the 1st century. 
 
The only the Council of Nicaea did was strike out of the record all of the nonsense books (Gnostic Gospels) that were written in the decades and centuries AFTER the New Testament was written. 
 
The Council of Nicaea wasn't a process of creating a religion but rather quality control of a religion that had been around for nearly 300 years. 
Leroy Added Jul 24, 2017 - 8:53am
Thanks for your response, Patrick.  Opher's response is deafening.  We can only guess what he meant.
 
Since Opher detests all religions, it could not be because it is against Christian law.  He doesn't recognize it.  I can only guess that he is mainly referring to the Crusades, but this is an assumption on my part.  There was no written international law at the time.  In fact, there were no written international laws until the end of the 19th century.  I suppose he could have meant WWI and WWII.  Wars should be fought when necessary.  IMHO, Chamberlain was immoral to avoid war.  His immoral acts gave birth to WWII against a formidable opponent, all of which could have been avoided if it had been nipped in the bud.
 
You are right; the Chinese have had some form of international law for 4,000 years.  It didn't stop them from fighting the bloodiest internal wars in history.  IIRC, one of them killed a third of the population.  The recent history, say the last 1,000 years, is a history of conquest of its neighbors.  Granted, it is also a history of subjugation by foreigners, so we can't blame the Hans.  Of course, being ruled by foreigners can be peaceful.  The current Han government avoids instability.
 
I can only conclude that it comes from Opher's International Law of Bon Hommieism where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya.
 
 

Recent Articles by Writers The Burghal Hidage follows.