Houston mayor harassed by pastor

atomiclauren

There is a megachurch here (one of several) and the pastor is wanting our (gay) mayor to resign if she keeps backing marriage equality.

I'm reaaaaally irked by this on more than one level and I'm embarrassed it's coming out of our large and diverse city.. :sick:

http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1330475157-Local-Pastor-Asks-Mayor-To-Resign.html
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Pastor-mayor-go-head-to-head/-/1735978/9217594/-/yva80yz/-/
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/120229-mayor-parker-vs-pastors-and-president

This Sunday a high profile Houston megachurch pastor will preach politics from the pulpit. Pastor Steve Riggle of Grace Community Church plans to address his controversial comments about Houston Mayor Annise Parker.

Riggle is calling on the mayor to resign if she doesn't keep quiet about legalizing same sex marriage. For a second day Mayor Parker is firing back against local religious leaders and even President Obama.

She made her most candid comments yet on a SiriusXM radio program. The first openly gay mayor of a major city says she's been hit with a wave of hate mail from Houston's religious right activists.

"There's definitely a hard core group here that is just mortally offended that there is a lesbian mayor of Houston," said Parker on the Michaelangelo Signorile show.

BrettPGH

^THIS is when I start feeling like we can tax churches! Some of them simply don't hold up their end of the bargain.

castadiva

Slippery slope, though, Brett. Taxing all churches would also hit churches which do an awful lot of good in their communities (and there are a LOT of churches who quietly go about their business and bring significant benefits to the local community, religious or otherwise). Taxation would severely limit their ability, in many cases, to continue to provide, often free or charge or at very low cost, the programmes and facilities they offer to the wider community.

While I don't agree, in any way, shape, or form with this pastor or those like him, to call for taxation on all churches because some church leaders preach a message you disagree with is rather like calling for newspapers who print Op. Eds you disagree with to pay a financial penalty for doing so.

I'm also curious to know what you think the "bargain" you say some churches don't uphold is?

BrettPGH

Slippery slope, though, Brett. Taxing all churches would also hit churches which do an awful lot of good in their communities (and there are a LOT of churches who quietly go about their business and bring significant benefits to the local community, religious or otherwise). Taxation would severely limit their ability, in many cases, to continue to provide, often free or charge or at very low cost, the programmes and facilities they offer to the wider community.

While I don't agree, in any way, shape, or form with this pastor or those like him, to call for taxation on all churches because some church leaders preach a message you disagree with is rather like calling for newspapers who print Op. Eds you disagree with to pay a financial penalty for doing so.

I'm also curious to know what you think the "bargain" you say some churches don't uphold is?

Oooh my bad! I promptly started a derail into a thread that we already have. Let's see if I can't right the train...

Churches are not taxed so that they can stay out of government and government can stay out of religion. It's a pretty smart deal. But if so many churches, even the small ones who benefit the community, insist on sticking their nose in politics and policy than they can be taxed. Taxation goes hand in hand with representation. Many churches are insisting on the second part while wanting no part of the first.

Even if they were supporting a message I agree with I'd feel it's not their place. Churches, pastors, etc. deal in religion. I proudly support their right to believe whatever they like and preach about it to whoever cares to listen. And that's where it ends. Their religion has no place affecting the lives of any person who does not share their views. Just as the pastor in question certainly wouldn't want his lifestyle choices to be affected by those of the Jewish, Muslim or Scientologist persuasion.

No person's religion, NO ONE'S, should have any bearing on how anyone but them lives their life.

MikeSEA

I'm also curious to know what you think the "bargain" you say some churches don't uphold is?

I suppose it depends on why we don't tax churches in the first place. I don't think it has anything to do with charity necessarily. We have this supposed desire in the states to keep the Church and state separate from each other; we call it separation of church and state.

So, I don't really have a problem with a Church losing their tax exempt status if they decide to get that involved in politics. I don't know that exercising their rights to free speech qualifies as an action to lose tax exemption, but any money donated to the cause of fighting same-sex marriage should, in my opinion.

castadiva

Slippery slope, though, Brett. Taxing all churches would also hit churches which do an awful lot of good in their communities (and there are a LOT of churches who quietly go about their business and bring significant benefits to the local community, religious or otherwise). Taxation would severely limit their ability, in many cases, to continue to provide, often free or charge or at very low cost, the programmes and facilities they offer to the wider community.

While I don't agree, in any way, shape, or form with this pastor or those like him, to call for taxation on all churches because some church leaders preach a message you disagree with is rather like calling for newspapers who print Op. Eds you disagree with to pay a financial penalty for doing so.

I'm also curious to know what you think the "bargain" you say some churches don't uphold is?

Oooh my bad! I promptly started a derail into a thread that we already have. Let's see if I can't right the train...

Churches are not taxed so that they can stay out of government and government can stay out of religion. It's a pretty smart deal. But if so many churches, even the small ones who benefit the community, insist on sticking their nose in politics and policy than they can be taxed. Taxation goes hand in hand with representation. Many churches are insisting on the second part while wanting no part of the first.

Even if they were supporting a message I agree with I'd feel it's not their place. Churches, pastors, etc. deal in religion. I proudly support their right to believe whatever they like and preach about it to whoever cares to listen. And that's where it ends. Their religion has no place affecting the lives of any person who does not share their views. Just as the pastor in question certainly wouldn't want his lifestyle choices to be affected by those of the Jewish, Muslim or Scientologist persuasion.

No person's religion, NO ONE'S, should have any bearing on how anyone but them lives their life.

So, are you saying (forgive me if I'm being obtuse) that religious institutions and leaders should not discuss/speak about politics and political things if they want to keep their tax-free status? Certainly, no religious leader should also exert direct political influence (in the US, under the separation doctrine - it's a bit different in the UK, where there are 20 bishops in the House of Lords...), but to expect that no religious leader will comment on policy or politics, which directly affect their congregations and communities, simply because of the doctrine of separation of church and state, seems unrealistic and, to tie this reticence to tax status, unnecessarily punitive.

I agree with you in the most part re. your last statement, but it begs the question of politicians whose religious beliefs are a part of their background, character and viewpoint. Do you expect that a politician of whatever faith will somehow divorce him or herself from that part of themselves when making policy decisions or choosing how to vote?

MikeSEA

Do you expect that a politician of whatever faith will somehow divorce him or herself from that part of themselves when making policy decisions or choosing how to vote?

For me, the answer is yes. As a person, I would expect their views of right and wrong would be influenced by their morals, which could certain be influenced by their religious beliefs. I expect an elected official in this country to understand that their religious values are no more important, valuable or True than anyone else's when they vote on policy. I think matters of public policy should really be viewed from a more strictly rational perspective.

In this specific case, I would expect any elected official, who holds a religiously-based belief that marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman, to understand that they represent people of differing religious values and that some other means of judgment---hopefully being rational--will have to guide their decision or we risk starting to become a theocracy.

BrettPGH

So, are you saying (forgive me if I'm being obtuse) that religious institutions and leaders should not discuss/speak about politics and political things if they want to keep their tax-free status? Certainly, no religious leader should also exert direct political influence (in the US, under the separation doctrine - it's a bit different in the UK, where there are 20 bishops in the House of Lords...), but to expect that no religious leader will comment on policy or politics, which directly affect their congregations and communities, simply because of the doctrine of separation of church and state, seems unrealistic and, to tie this reticence to tax status, unnecessarily punitive.

I agree with you in the most part re. your last statement, but it begs the question of politicians whose religious beliefs are a part of their background, character and viewpoint. Do you expect that a politician of whatever faith will somehow divorce him or herself from that part of themselves when making policy decisions or choosing how to vote?

No forgiveness required. Thanks for participating.

And yes, it seems I kind of am. I mean if they want to take the pulpit and complain about policy.. fine. But many churches tell their parishoners exactly who they should be voting for. They sponsor legislation. They lead campaigns and spend big amounts of money advertising to make sure their religious beliefs are upheld by the government.

If they want a voice in government there is a price to pay for that. It's taxes. If they don't want to be taxed than they have zero say in the workings of government. There is no third option of "We'd like to be represented by the government and have our beliefs forced on others, but we don't want to pay into the system that makes this happen."

Politicians with religious convictions have an obligation to not let those feelings affect those they represent. Just like your boss at work surely has certain religious beliefs but that has no bearing on how you should be treated as an employee. We both live in secular countries with religious freedoms. As far as I can tell that's the only way government has a chance at working. I can't think of a single theocracy in existence today that any thinking person would actually want to live in. Can anyone?

brandiuntz

There is a megachurch here (one of several) and the pastor is wanting our (gay) mayor to resign if she keeps backing marriage equality.

I'm reaaaaally irked by this on more than one level and I'm embarrassed it's coming out of our large and diverse city.. :sick:

http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1330475157-Local-Pastor-Asks-Mayor-To-Resign.html
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Pastor-mayor-go-head-to-head/-/1735978/9217594/-/yva80yz/-/
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/120229-mayor-parker-vs-pastors-and-president

This Sunday a high profile Houston megachurch pastor will preach politics from the pulpit. Pastor Steve Riggle of Grace Community Church plans to address his controversial comments about Houston Mayor Annise Parker.

Riggle is calling on the mayor to resign if she doesn't keep quiet about legalizing same sex marriage. For a second day Mayor Parker is firing back against local religious leaders and even President Obama.

She made her most candid comments yet on a SiriusXM radio program. The first openly gay mayor of a major city says she's been hit with a wave of hate mail from Houston's religious right activists.

"There's definitely a hard core group here that is just mortally offended that there is a lesbian mayor of Houston," said Parker on the Michaelangelo Signorile show.

Fellow Houston citizen here :drinker: (and a lesbian). Grace Community makes me sick sometimes. I pass their location near Clear Lake every day. Some of the "sermons" they advertise anger me.

I do get some entertainment out of the fact they had planned to put up a massive cross along I-45, but another mega church beat them to it with that oversize one off the Beltway and 45.

Houston: where mega churches fight over who has the biggest cross.:laugh:

I'm very proud Houston voters don't care about sexual orientation. They picked who they thought could do the job well.

Nopedotjpeg

None of this **** surprises me. However, please, tax the ****ing churches.

Bahet

The law regarding tax exempt status actually does say that if churches start to talk politics in an effort to sway their congregation that they may lose their tax exemption. This church is most definitely violating that law. That doesn't mean that all churches should lose their tax exempt status but that specific one most definitely should. I almost wish I was a lawyer in the Houston area just so I could take them to court over it. Frankly, I'm amazed no tax attorney with the IRS has done so with several of these churches including the Mormon ones who influenced prop 8 in CA.

castadiva

No forgiveness required. Thanks for participating.

Glad forgiveness isn't required! :flowerforyou:

And yes, it seems I kind of am. I mean if they want to take the pulpit and complain about policy.. fine. But many churches tell their parishoners exactly who they should be voting for. They sponsor legislation. They lead campaigns and spend big amounts of money advertising to make sure their religious beliefs are upheld by the government.

If they want a voice in government there is a price to pay for that. It's taxes. If they don't want to be taxed than they have zero say in the workings of government. There is no third option of "We'd like to be represented by the government and have our beliefs forced on others, but we don't want to pay into the system that makes this happen."

I think a line has to be drawn between what is reasonable - complaining about/praising policy, publically expressing opinions on political issues and politicians, expecting a certain level of political representation in regards to freedom of expression/right to assemble/freedom to espouse a religion - and what is not - telling parishioners how to vote (though it's not just churches who are guilty of this!), sponsoring legislation (really!?) and using church funds to buy political backing. I don't see any problem with the former (or with campaigning/advertising - there are thousands of pressure groups and causes of all sorts who do that. I have several friends who are professional lobbyists for various causes, and politicians choose to acknowledge or disregard their messages as they see fit.). I do agree though that direct interference in politics is fundamentally wrong.

Nonetheless, I do think there is a fundamental issue that is being ignored in this discussion. The laws and constitutions of many nominally-Christian countries, including the US, are intrinsically linked to and unavoidably influenced by the Christian church. One cannot ignore history in the search for the right path forward. That's not to say that this level of influence should be maintained, just that it must be acknowledged that removing all religious (and Christian specifically) influence from politics is neither possible nor practical - you'd have to start from scratch with the legal codes/constitutions/founding documents of most of the Western world. It's also worth noting that many of the Judaeo-Christian-based laws enshrined in legal codes and constitutions are of immense benefit to those who live under them, even if they do represent an imposition of the values of one group upon the wider community - I'm thinking of laws that forbid murder, incest and theft, for example, all of which, especially in the US, can be traced back to the Old Testament and the biblical laws espoused by the Pilgrims. I'd be one of the first to say that current conservative religious opposition to contraceptive insurance and gay marriage, for example, is misguided and out of touch, but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that a person or institution should lose tax benefits because they have an opinion that is not shared by the majority. It sounds too much like coercion and/or censorship to me.

Politicians with religious convictions have an obligation to not let those feelings affect those they represent. Just like your boss at work surely has certain religious beliefs but that has no bearing on how you should be treated as an employee.

While in theory I agree with you, to an extent on both counts, and particularly in the latter case, I'm not sure one can reasonably expect that a politician's moral values, which may or may not be religious in basis, should be completely set aside in making policy decisions - logic must certainly be the over-riding factor, but what seems logical to a neo-con and to a socialist are likely to be profoundly different things, and often, particularly on emotive issues, inescapably linked to or influenced by the moral code to which that individual subscribes.

I also don't think the two scenarios can be truly equated, unless one turns the first around. A politician is not the same as an employer; in fact, effectively a politician is the nominated representative of his or her electorate, and closer to being an employee - if the majority of the electorate doesn't like his or her actions, come the next election, another candidate is likely to be elected by the majority vote. In this case, the power lies with the electorate to decide whether or not the politician is making decisions based on religious convictions, and if so, whether or not the majority agrees with the decision. That's democracy in action, with the real power in the hands of the majority. A traditional employer/employee relationship is not democratic, and the power lies primarily in the hands of a minority, in which case there is most certainly a need for a certain amount of protection for the majority from any possibility of coercion and/or censure by the minority - religious, sexual or otherwise.

We both live in secular countries with religious freedoms. As far as I can tell that's the only way government has a chance at working. I can't think of a single theocracy in existence today that any thinking person would actually want to live in. Can anyone?

The UK, officially speaking, is not truly secular (hence why we have Bishops in the House of Lords), though it's certainly not a theocracy either, and I take your point, though I'd dispute that secularity is the only way for government to function - I gather the Vatican State's a great place to live if you happen to fit into the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, and they haven't had a riot for centuries... The problem with theocracies of course is that they're absolutely fine if you freely believe as the leaders of the state believe (unless you're a woman, in many cases, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish), and vastly problematic if you don't. The same could be said for all sorts of 'cracy's', including the demo- variety, if your personal beliefs fall to the far left or right. Overall, I'm rather glad to live where I do!

@Bahet re. Mormons and Prop. 8 - the illogicality of their opposition to same-sex marriage on religious grounds always makes me howl with laughter. It's fine for a man to marry lots of women at the same time, but not OK for two men or two women to marry, because that violates the sanctity of marriage. Er, come again?

MikeSEA

1. The US is not a Christian country. Our "founding fathers" were quite resoundingly against such an idea. If 90% of our population professed to be Christian, we're still not a Christian Country.

2. The ideals upon which our country was founded are hardly unique to the Christian faith. Thus, again we're not a Christian nation.

Azdak

1. The US is not a Christian country. Our "founding fathers" were quite resoundingly against such an idea. If 90% of our population professed to be Christian, we're still not a Christian Country.

2. The ideals upon which our country was founded are hardly unique to the Christian faith. Thus, again we're not a Christian nation.

I agree--the idea that "our laws and values are rooted in Judeo-Christian 'morals'" is a dangerous myth. Our social customs may have roots in that tradition, but the so-called "Judeo-Christian morals" --at least any of the ones worth paying attention to--are "universal truths" that existed long before there were religions to codify them, and, in fact, are likely inherent in the human species.

The philosophies that inspired those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution may have used some christian terms and imagery that were in common use at the time, but the men doing the writing were pretty clear that the founding principles of this country were not based on any one sectarian belief system.

castadiva

1. The US is not a Christian country. Our "founding fathers" were quite resoundingly against such an idea. If 90% of our population professed to be Christian, we're still not a Christian Country.

2. The ideals upon which our country was founded are hardly unique to the Christian faith. Thus, again we're not a Christian nation.

I agree--the idea that "our laws and values are rooted in Judeo-Christian 'morals'" is a dangerous myth. Our social customs may have roots in that tradition, but the so-called "Judeo-Christian morals" --at least any of the ones worth paying attention to--are "universal truths" that existed long before there were religions to codify them, and, in fact, are likely inherent in the human species.

The philosophies that inspired those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution may have used some christian terms and imagery that were in common use at the time, but the men doing the writing were pretty clear that the founding principles of this country were not based on any one sectarian belief system.

I will concede to your presumably superior wisdom re. the official status of the US - you both must have studied it and the foundations of the modern-day US at school, while my knowledge is primarily self-taught in this regard - but I definitely dispute that the basis in Judaeo-Christian traditions of many of the western worlds' fundamental laws is a "dangerous myth". (Why "dangerous" by the way?) Yes, many of these principles existed well before the codification of religion, but if one is loooking for the basis of modern Western law (which is what I was talking about), one finds the route back, time and again, to the monasteries and religious orders - after all, that is where the majority of educated people - the philosophers, scientists, authors and legists, were to be found until the Renaissance at the very least, and beyond that, really, until the Enlightenment.

I'd also love to know why you both seem to disclaim or discount any influence of the Pilgrim fathers' and their well-documented religious beliefs on the "founding fathers" who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution? Given the origins of most of these men, and the virtual omnipresence of religious belief and worship at the time, I would have thought it very difficult, if not impossible, to avoid a Judaeo-Christian background, for lack of a better word, in these documents, whatever their traditions and statements of tolerance and secularism.

MikeSEA

Our founding fathers were deists who believed in Natural Law, but they had no intention of having the US be a Christian nation.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Without wanting to do more research, I would question how much of Western law is actually based more heavily on Greek philosophy, rather than anything particularly Christian.

castadiva

Our founding fathers were deists who believed in Natural Law, but they had no intention of having the US be a Christian nation.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Without wanting to do more research, I would question how much of Western law is actually based more heavily on Greek philosophy, rather than anything particularly Christian.

Jefferson's intentions, at least, were clear! Certainly the philosophical background to most western law pre-dates or in some cases, is contemporaneous with, the early years of Christianity. However, I'm talking about the actual documented laws and constitutions of modern (by which I mean A.D.) Western nation-states, mostly , if not all, created and written primarily by those in religious orders, or (in the case of relatively-younger countries)by individuals taught and brought up with the traditions of Judaeo-Christian beliefs, and/or heavily influenced by the laws of older nation-states, the origins of which are again traceable to religious houses. The point is, you can't entirely divorce religion from government when the laws and founding documents of most western nations are based, at least in part, on Judaeo-Christian traditions, and/or were written by products of those same traditions.

atomiclauren

Fellow Houston citizen here :drinker: (and a lesbian). Grace Community makes me sick sometimes. I pass their location near Clear Lake every day. Some of the "sermons" they advertise anger me.

I do get some entertainment out of the fact they had planned to put up a massive cross along I-45, but another mega church beat them to it with that oversize one off the Beltway and 45.

Houston: where mega churches fight over who has the biggest cross.:laugh:

I'm very proud Houston voters don't care about sexual orientation. They picked who they thought could do the job well.

I remember when the Sagemont cross was first planned - I lived central and thought how weird it would be to live near it and see it regularly. I happen to live close to it now and see it often - joke's on me!

ETA -- this was the rendering for Grace Community Church's mega crosses (they wanted TWO - at the north and south "entrances to the city," wherever that would have been):

MikeSEA

Our founding fathers were deists who believed in Natural Law, but they had no intention of having the US be a Christian nation.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Without wanting to do more research, I would question how much of Western law is actually based more heavily on Greek philosophy, rather than anything particularly Christian.

Jefferson's intentions, at least, were clear! Certainly the philosophical background to most western law pre-dates or in some cases, is contemporaneous with, the early years of Christianity. However, I'm talking about the actual documented laws and constitutions of modern Western nation-states, mostly , if not all, created and written primarily by those in religious orders, or (in the case of relatively-younger countries)by individuals taught and brought up with the traditions of Judaeo-Christian beliefs, and/or heavily influenced by the laws of older nation-states, the origins of which are again traceable to religious houses.

If your point is that the authors who penned the Constitutions had an education that was grounded in some sort of religious philosophy, I fail to see the relevance. Speaking generally about documents without looking at specifics of context isn't that useful. It would be illogical to assume that Christian morality influenced laws when we have evidence to the contrary (at least in the case of the US) and no evidence other than supposition that supports the claim.

Culturally, they were likely Christians. I celebrate Christmas nominally and yet I'm not a Christian. I guess my point is that the degree to which they were Christian could range from being devout to nil, it's and of little importance when we look at artifacts themselves as representations of religious philosophy. Part of education at the time also included being exposed to Classics.

Bahet

If this were a Christian nation or one founded on Christianity then our laws would be based on the 10 Commandments or at the very least, the 10 Commandments would be laws.

Azdak

Our founding fathers were deists who believed in Natural Law, but they had no intention of having the US be a Christian nation.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Without wanting to do more research, I would question how much of Western law is actually based more heavily on Greek philosophy, rather than anything particularly Christian.

Jefferson's intentions, at least, were clear! Certainly the philosophical background to most western law pre-dates or in some cases, is contemporaneous with, the early years of Christianity. However, I'm talking about the actual documented laws and constitutions of modern (by which I mean A.D.) Western nation-states, mostly , if not all, created and written primarily by those in religious orders, or (in the case of relatively-younger countries)by individuals taught and brought up with the traditions of Judaeo-Christian beliefs, and/or heavily influenced by the laws of older nation-states, the origins of which are again traceable to religious houses. The point is, you can't entirely divorce religion from government when the laws and founding documents of most western nations are based, at least in part, on Judaeo-Christian traditions, and/or were written by products of those same traditions.

I see it as coincidental rather than causal. I use the term "dangerous myth" because the idea is used for: support of the idea that the US is fundamentally a christian nation, thus justifying the intrusion of religion into secular areas where is doesn't belong; support for the idea among christians that their sectarian beliefs are somehow innately superior to those who profess other beliefs or no beliefs at all; the use of christian sectarian writings as a substitute for science and empirical discovery.

The idea that some laws or customs may trace their social origins back to a religious beginning does not mean they are inherent or exclusive to that religion. It does not mean that religion is the "source" of those ideas, nor does it mean that religions are necessary in order for such laws, morals, or customs to exist. The common moral teaching "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" exists in, and originated independently, in almost all major religions -- and likely most minor ones as well. So the fact that early American political theorists may have drawn upon common cultural christian themes is more an accident of history--they just happened to live in that culture. But I don't think they drew directly from the prevailing christian thought at the time for their ideas--especially since many of them openly expressed antipathy towards structured christianity.

brandiuntz

Fellow Houston citizen here :drinker: (and a lesbian). Grace Community makes me sick sometimes. I pass their location near Clear Lake every day. Some of the "sermons" they advertise anger me.

I do get some entertainment out of the fact they had planned to put up a massive cross along I-45, but another mega church beat them to it with that oversize one off the Beltway and 45.

Houston: where mega churches fight over who has the biggest cross.:laugh:

I'm very proud Houston voters don't care about sexual orientation. They picked who they thought could do the job well.

I remember when the Sagemont cross was first planned - I lived central and thought how weird it would be to live near it and see it regularly. I happen to live close to it now and see it often - joke's on me!

ETA -- this was the rendering for Grace Community Church's mega crosses (they wanted TWO - at the north and south "entrances to the city," wherever that would have been):

I'd heard they wanted 2 crosses, but had never seen what their proposal looked like. Makes Sagemont's look downright tame!:laugh:

castadiva

If your point is that the authors who penned the Constitutions had an education that was grounded in some sort of religious philosophy, I fail to see the relevance. Speaking generally about documents without looking at specifics of context isn't that useful.

But that's exactly my point! The background and historical context for the writing of these documents across the western world, not just in the US is a fairly conservative, by modern standards, highly homogenous, very religious (in comparison to the modern era) and predominantly Christian period. Of course someone's education and background is relevant - it forms the basis for their ideas, philosophies and thoughts - and considering that provides a contextual basis from which to look at the founding documents of most western nations, which were primarily written by people educated by the Christian church, or in the wider social traditions of that church.

It would be illogical to assume that Christian morality influenced laws when we have evidence to the contrary (at least in the case of the US) and no evidence other than supposition that supports the claim.

Culturally, they were likely Christians. I celebrate Christmas nominally and yet I'm not a Christian. I guess my point is that the degree to which they were Christian could range from being devout to nil, it's and of little importance when we look at artifacts themselves as representations of religious philosophy. Part of education at the time also included being exposed to Classics.

I don't believe you can divorce cultural background entirely from a creative process - it ineluctably informs and shapes ideas. The writers of your constitution etc. lived in a time where Christianity and a morality based on that were the basic cultural norm in the western world. Being nominally a Christian and celebrating Christmas etc. without actively participating in religious services throughout the year in that period would have been unusual, rather than a common occurrence as it is now.

I concur that level of devotion is variable, but I would contend that, in the context of an earlier time, when religious belief was a societal standard, the writers of these early documents are highly likely to have been more influenced by their shared cultural background than not, and whether consciously or otherwise. Of course they were educated in the Classics - I would argue that by the time of the US Founding Fathers these had also become a part of the western cultural background, hardly an innovation or unusual part of a gentleman's education, and undoubtedly also an influence, but not necessarily one that negates, or is exclusive of the cultural influence of the commonly-shared religious beliefs of the time.

I am not saying, and have not, I believe, suggested, that the laws of the US are Christian laws. (@Bahet, the UK is a Christian state - we have a state church, and the 10 commandments are not enshrined in law here, though many of our laws reflect these founding tenets of the Christian faith, as, if I may say, do some of most western nations' laws.) What I have said is that many of them are profoundly influenced by a long history of a primarily-Christian cultural tradition in the western world, and by reference to the laws of older nations, whose founding laws are inextricably linked with the Christian church in a variety of ways.

I can entirely understand the antipathy shown here to religious extremists, which is what I would class the pastor in the OP as, affecting the day-to-day politics of a secular country, whether officially secular or not (I'm perfectly willing to say that the UK, though not officially a secular state, is an increasingly secular society). What I don't understand is the reluctance or unwillingness to acknowledge that, for good or evil, the Christian tradition has played a large part in the creation of the western world and way of life we now enjoy. Yes, the origin of many of the ideas enshrined in that tradition predate Christianity, or formal religion, for that matter, but they are an intrinsic part of the way we live because many generations of our forebears primarily subscribed to a single fundamental tradition which has shaped our culture and our societal norms profoundly.

castadiva

I see it as coincidental rather than causal. I use the term "dangerous myth" because the idea is used for: support of the idea that the US is fundamentally a christian nation, thus justifying the intrusion of religion into secular areas where is doesn't belong; support for the idea among christians that their sectarian beliefs are somehow innately superior to those who profess other beliefs or no beliefs at all; the use of christian sectarian writings as a substitute for science and empirical discovery.

Thank you for expanding on that - I understand why you might use the term "dangerous", though I'd still argue about "myth"! Sadly, pretty much anything you care to name can be used for dangerous or negative purposes - history, science, philosophy - there are numerous examples of each being twisted and used to serve an end you or I might consider distateful or downright wrong by extremists and purveyors of hatred, though the vast majority views and understands whatever it might be with a clear and/or rational approach.

The idea that some laws or customs may trace their social origins back to a religious beginning does not mean they are inherent or exclusive to that religion. It does not mean that religion is the "source" of those ideas, nor does it mean that religions are necessary in order for such laws, morals, or customs to exist. The common moral teaching "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" exists in, and originated independently, in almost all major religions -- and likely most minor ones as well. So the fact that early American political theorists may have drawn upon common cultural christian themes is more an accident of history--they just happened to live in that culture. But I don't think they drew directly from the prevailing christian thought at the time for their ideas--especially since many of them openly expressed antipathy towards structured christianity.

I think I've mostly set out my stall in this regard in my answer to MikeSEA, but in brief, my contention is that you cannot divorce a cultural background from a creative process. Whether or not the US Founding Fathers drew directly from the socially-prevalent Christian thought of the period, they, and their understanding of law, were the product already of many centuries of western, Christian tradition, and their actions, consciously or otherwise, would inescapably have been influenced by that. I like your phrase "coincidental, not causal" - the formation of the US as we now know it is the product of a long series of coincidences (don't get me started on Jungian theory...), but just because something is coincidental rather than deliberate does not mean that it is not influential, especially when one is speaking of one of the historical cornerstones of modern western culture.

MikeSEA

There's a difference between "we can't step outside of our ideologies" (true) and "all our creations must necessarily be [whatever characteristic] because that [whatever characteristic] was culturally prevalent at the time."

You say

but just because something is coincidental rather than deliberate does not mean that it is not influential, especially when one is speaking of one of the historical cornerstones of modern western culture.

I would contend that that "soemthing" isn't necessarily as influential as we might think either. It's really a problem of generalization for me. We would have to examine a particular document/artifact/piece of art individually to see just how influenced it is. I guess I could make the statement that the US Constitution was indeed heavily influenced by centuries of Christian thought---in many ways it stands out as a counter to those traditions, which is a form of influence, I suppose. It is distinctly non-Christian when viewed from a historical perspective.

EDIT:

What I don't understand is the reluctance or unwillingness to acknowledge that, for good or evil, the Christian tradition has played a large part in the creation of the western world and way of life we now enjoy. Yes, the origin of many of the ideas enshrined in that tradition predate Christianity, or formal religion, for that matter, but they are an intrinsic part of the way we live because many generations of our forebears primarily subscribed to a single fundamental tradition which has shaped our culture and our societal norms profoundly.

I'm not resistant to the idea that Christianity has deep influences on current and past culture. I'm saying that the prevalence of strong doctrine does not mean that any symbols or historical markers of the time can be qualified as being particularly Christian--which is what we're talking about when we speak of the US, or any other country, as being a Christian country. It wasn't founded on particularly Christian principles. The fact that Christianity happened to have been popular is more or less irrelevant when we're analyzing the degree to which our laws reflect religious philosophy. As I said earlier, at it's most influential, Christianity--and really all religion, but Christianity happened to be dominant--was really just an organization that our laws were drafted in such a way as to avoid any connection.

castadiva

I think we're going round and round in circles, and will probably never reach a conclusion. Possibly because I think we're talking about slightly different things. My contention from the start has been that most western laws and founding documents are in some manner, and to a greater or lesser degree, profoundly influenced by Christianity, because that was the dominant de facto common cultural background of all western countries for centuries - long before the USA was even a twinkle in Washington,Lincoln, Franklin et al's eye. I have never said, or intended to say that these are Christian laws or documents, but that the influence of something as all-pervasive as Christianity historically has been in the recent western world ie. the majority of the last two millennia, is inescapable.

MikeSEA

I think we're going round and round in circles, and will probably never reach a conclusion. Possibly because I think we're talking about slightly different things. My contention from the start has been that most western laws and founding documents are in some manner, and to a greater or lesser degree, profoundly influenced by Christianity, because that was the dominant de facto common cultural background of all western countries for centuries - long before the USA was even a twinkle in Washington,Lincoln, Franklin et al's eye. I have never said, or intended to say that these are Christian laws or documents, but that the influence of something as all-pervasive as Christianity historically has been in the recent western world ie. the majority of the last two millennia, is inescapable.

Fair enough. I simply disagree with your assertion as being overly generalized and lacking in specific support. It's not a bad thing; it's just a different way of drawing conclusions.

castadiva

I think we're going round and round in circles, and will probably never reach a conclusion. Possibly because I think we're talking about slightly different things. My contention from the start has been that most western laws and founding documents are in some manner, and to a greater or lesser degree, profoundly influenced by Christianity, because that was the dominant de facto common cultural background of all western countries for centuries - long before the USA was even a twinkle in Washington,Lincoln, Franklin et al's eye. I have never said, or intended to say that these are Christian laws or documents, but that the influence of something as all-pervasive as Christianity historically has been in the recent western world ie. the majority of the last two millennia, is inescapable.

Fair enough. I simply disagree with your assertion as being overly generalized and lacking in specific support. It's not a bad thing; it's just a different way of drawing conclusions.

I think the influence of Christianity on western culture over the past two millennia or so is one of the (very) few areas where it's safe to generalise, quite simply because it is so self-evident, so inescapable and so overwhelming. I could provide screeds of specific evidence, but if I were to be comprehensive, I'd not be able to leave the computer for a week! However, that's OK - we approach this from different perspectives, I guess, which often also means different conclusions. Have a nice weekend :flowerforyou:

poisongirl6485

Churches are said to be tax-exempt for a number of reasons, one being that they will not be able to influence politics by claiming their 'tax dollars' are involved. Yet somehow they still think they should be allow to sway public policy when they put nothing forward for it. If they want to keep butting into gov't and law, then they can pony up the tax $$$. Otherwise STFU.

fbmandy55

I do get some entertainment out of the fact they had planned to put up a massive cross along I-45, but another mega church beat them to it with that oversize one off the Beltway and 45.

Houston: where mega churches fight over who has the biggest cross.:laugh: .

You should steal the giant cross and use it as a lamp for your cannibis operation. Oh wait, this isn't Majestic...

brandiuntz

I do get some entertainment out of the fact they had planned to put up a massive cross along I-45, but another mega church beat them to it with that oversize one off the Beltway and 45.

Houston: where mega churches fight over who has the biggest cross.:laugh: .

You should steal the giant cross and use it as a lamp for your cannibis operation. Oh wait, this isn't Majestic...

LOL. It's a bit big (170 feet tall). Can't fit it in the car. I can't begin to imagine my light bill. :noway:

http://swamplot.com/sagemont-cross-new-higher-power-lines-beltway-8/2009-02-20/