solution to a christian nation?

[robtex]

I know it is big debate on how much influence Christianity had on government in the USA. I would have to confess that I myself am a secularists; however I think I may have a compromise that is open to debate.

What if the state and federate government granted the churches legal rights over the members of their congregation that were congruent to the laws of their religion. The laws could not incarcerate members but civil fines and sanctions (aka community service) could be imposed for violations against God’s laws.

Here is how it would work.

Each member of the Christian churches that participated would have to go to a psychologists and be judged sound mind and body.

Than sign a notarized letter stating they were going to be accountable to God through the church

Each would receive an id card and the church would receive a duplicate given the church legal status over that individual.

No person under the age of 21 could apply

A predetermined set of specific religious laws and the sanctions imposed would be reviewed by a neutral church committee to garner general acceptance. The laws could vary from church to church however if the board found them to be grossly unbalanced that church would have to revise their plan or petition the decision.

The church would have to apply for status as a law sanctioning status and pay the government for the registration so that the program would be self-funded.

Any church that did not apply or did not get approved would not qualify. Any person not found to be of sound mind of body would be ineligible and any person who did not or could not get a card would be disqualified. Felons would be barred from the program.

Possible sanctions could include community service and or fines for the following

Having other God’s before Yahweh
Adultery
Abortion
Working on the Sabbath
Taking the Lord’s name in vain


What this would not cover is laws that are already covered by state and federal laws. For instance, if a card carry Christian was prosecuted by the state for theft than the church could not also prosecute him.


The theory being that this way Christians can have their christian laws but non-christians would not be bound by it.


Does this sound feasible and if so what would you change?

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I don't think that would be a good idea. If a Christian fell away, and decided to become an atheist or something, how would they go about that w/o being punished by their church?

And anyway, we are "one nation" (if not under God, that's debatable) and we all have to share the same laws. That is why I believe in an adequate seperation between church and state. Atheists don't have to follow the laws set by God, but Christians are allowed to practice their faith freely. Everyone is happy, no one is bound to worship a certain way, or not worship at all.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

And another thing, if I want to commit a sin, my punishment should come from God, not from men. What I do and do not do is between me and God. My church can guide me and help me, but they're not there to make me do community service for my sins. Does that sound right?

 

[robtex]

And another thing, if I want to commit a sin, my punishment should come from God, not from men. What I do and do not do is between me and God. My church can guide me and help me, but they're not there to make me do community service for my sins. Does that sound right?

that is why it is on a volunteer basis. If you didn't want to practice this you couldn't join the churches that used the program but no body would be forcing the christian sanctions on you.

 

[robtex]

I don't think that would be a good idea. If a Christian fell away, and decided to become an atheist or something, how would they go about that w/o being punished by their church? \.

good point. my oversight. How about the card holder has the freedom to withdrawl from the program by filling out a form which is submitted to the state and to the church and paying an admistration fee to both?

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

that is why it is on a volunteer basis. If you didn't want to practice this you couldn't join the churches that used the program but no body would be forcing the christian sanctions on you.

hmmm...I guess I don't see a problem with it, then.

 

[robtex]

And anyway, we are "one nation" (if not under God, that's debatable) and we all have to share the same laws. That is why I believe in an adequate seperation between church and state. Atheists don't have to follow the laws set by God, but Christians are allowed to practice their faith freely. Everyone is happy, no one is bound to worship a certain way, or not worship at all.

We can still be one nation. Everyone is not happy. Christians want to ban abortion, stem cell research, some want to do away with no-fault divorce, pre-marital sex ect and the non-christians want none of this. If there was a seperate governing body for Christians maybe they can enjoy God's laws without impeding on the non-believers freedoems. The issues of abortion, stem cell, sexual conduct ect would no longer be an issue. The secular goverment would do its thing the Christians would be restrained and both groups could live with their own moral sanctions and consquences while not antogizing one another.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The Romans did this with the Jews in NT times. It was an abysmal failure then and I would imagine it would be one today.

 

[robtex]

The Romans did this with the Jews in NT times. It was an abysmal failure then and I would imagine it would be one today.

Pete why do you think it would fail and looking at the loose model i put forward what you suggest tweaking to make it work better?

 

[Scuba Pete]

History... this is precisely what happened in the NT. People were miserable having to answer to two governments like that. Are we going to have to wear a big "C" on our shirt? What if we move? What if our uderstanding changes?

 

[!Fluffy!]

I know it is big debate on how much influence Christianity had on government in the USA. I would have to confess that I myself am a secularists; however I think I may have a compromise that is open to debate.

What if the state and federate government granted the churches legal rights over the members of their congregation that were congruent to the laws of their religion. The laws could not incarcerate members but civil fines and sanctions (aka community service) could be imposed for violations against God’s laws.

Here is how it would work.

Each member of the Christian churches that participated would have to go to a psychologists and be judged sound mind and body.

Than sign a notarized letter stating they were going to be accountable to God through the church

Each would receive an id card and the church would receive a duplicate given the church legal status over that individual.

No person under the age of 21 could apply

A predetermined set of specific religious laws and the sanctions imposed would be reviewed by a neutral church committee to garner general acceptance. The laws could vary from church to church however if the board found them to be grossly unbalanced that church would have to revise their plan or petition the decision.

The church would have to apply for status as a law sanctioning status and pay the government for the registration so that the program would be self-funded.

Any church that did not apply or did not get approved would not qualify. Any person not found to be of sound mind of body would be ineligible and any person who did not or could not get a card would be disqualified. Felons would be barred from the program.

Possible sanctions could include community service and or fines for the following

Having other God’s before Yahweh
Adultery
Abortion
Working on the Sabbath
Taking the Lord’s name in vain


What this would not cover is laws that are already covered by state and federal laws. For instance, if a card carry Christian was prosecuted by the state for theft than the church could not also prosecute him.


The theory being that this way Christians can have their christian laws but non-christians would not be bound by it.


Does this sound feasible and if so what would you change?

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble with the logic here.
First of all, your premise or assumption seems to be that if

(a) one believes that there was a "Christian influence on government in the USA",

then it would follow that

(b) Christians wish to impose some kind of Biblical law nationwide.

It's a non sequitur. An historical debate regarding (a) would have nothing to do with a religious/political debate regarding (b).

In the first place, an historian doesn't have to be a "Christian" to view and evaluate the relevant documentation to come to the conclusion that the Founders were theists, and most were members of Christian churches, and maybe this had some influence on their collective POV.

Secondly, do you just 'believe' that mainstream Christians in the United States wish to do something like replace existing laws with the kinds of Biblical or quasi-religious laws you imagine they would enjoy (as suggested in your OP), or can you offer supporting documentation from a reliable source?

 

[Sunstone]

Rob, I think the problem here is that those of the Religious Right who want us to believe that this nation was founded by Christians for Christians are not going to be content with just imposing their version of Judeo Christian values on themselves. On the contrary, they somehow believe the Founders gave them a mandate to impose their version of Judeo Christian values on everyone. That is, the silliness that fuels this idiocy isn't really about a right to live as one wants. It's about grabbing a right to make others live as one wants them to live.

Take gay marriage as a case in point. The Religious Right is not saying anything near to "We don't believe in gay marriage but you other folks do what you want about it". Rather it's screaming that it has a right to impose it's views on gay marriage on the rest of the world. This clearly shows the tendency of the Religious Right to do anything but mind its own business.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Take gay marriage as a case in point. The Religious Right is not saying anything near to "We don't believe in gay marriage but you other folks do what you want about it". Rather it's screaming that it has a right to impose it's views on gay marriage on the rest of the world. This clearly shows the tendency of the Religious Right to do anything but mind its own business.

I agree with Sunstone. Extremists want to be IN CONTROL of your entire life. This applies not only to the religious right, but to all extremists, religious or otherwise!

 

[Jon]

Why do these "religious" leaders want to change the laws to be a more christian society?
Jesus wanted the "real" Christians to get away from the secular world. If God gave everyone the right to choose and have free will, how can these so called Christians dominate the secular laws.
I think that they need to do some basic Bible studing and leave the rest of the people to make their own choices.
Christians are to live their life in such a way that when non-believers see them they will ask about the hope they have within them. They are to live a pure life.
You sure don't see any hope in "those" Christians do you?
God said you will know them by their fruits.

Just a thought.

 

[robtex]

I
Secondly, do you just 'believe' that mainstream Christians in the United States wish to do something like replace existing laws with the kinds of Biblical or quasi-religious laws you imagine they would enjoy (as suggested in your OP), or can you offer supporting documentation from a reliable source?

The movement is called Christian reconstructionism or dominion theology. Words like mainstream don't exist for a religion with hundreds of dominations and branches. Some of the groups in the second set of links are pro-christianzation of america. The state of Georgia had the 10 commandments in its supreme court for a while and our president is blunt about seeing the USA as a christian nation.

I don't think read my opening statementcarefully enough based on this qoute for two reasons:

1) I never said "replace" The laws would be for Christians in an addition too fashion.
2) the program would be voluntary

As a final thought before the footnote, the Christian segment IS trying to impose their religion on the non-christians of the USA. You will see this is so when you visit the links presented. All I am suggesting is that they should practice their "christian laws" on their own and let us non-christians go about our secular lives without the hinderance or nuisance domain theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionism
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/dominion-theology.html
http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/whatis.htm

http://www.cc.org/
http://www.family.org/
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/reconstruct2.html

 

[Rejected]

I have to agree with NetDoc and Sunstone.

The RR does not seem to be satisfied with control over their own flock. They already have that and they're chomping at the bit for more. They want to impose secular laws that will push their religious agenda, forcing the compliance of nonbelievers, or even disagreeing believers, through the threat of violence.

They want the whole world to think and believe and behave as they do, or at least as they tell them too. They’re not content following their own beliefs, but they want to force them on the rest of us.

In short, what you're suggesting wouldn't work because it isn't sufficient. It isn't enough for the religious sector to control their own; they want the reigns of the world.

And what happens when megareligions form some sort of "Holy Bounty Hunters" to bring wayward followers back to the church to make amends for their transgressions? Especially when Money is the penance? They wouldn’t be able to turn to the municipal or federally funded authorities, for they are enforcing religious, not secular law. But a fugitive is a fugitive, and most will do anything to escape justice when they know they are being pursued. Now we have a Bible on one hip and a Glock on the other.

Then the fugitive seeks asylum from the pursuing religious bodies from some secular order and Hello Jihad!

 

[Mike182]

I know it is big debate on how much influence Christianity had on government in the USA. I would have to confess that I myself am a secularists; however I think I may have a compromise that is open to debate.

What if the state and federate government granted the churches legal rights over the members of their congregation that were congruent to the laws of their religion. The laws could not incarcerate members but civil fines and sanctions (aka community service) could be imposed for violations against God’s laws.

Here is how it would work.

Each member of the Christian churches that participated would have to go to a psychologists and be judged sound mind and body.

Than sign a notarized letter stating they were going to be accountable to God through the church

Each would receive an id card and the church would receive a duplicate given the church legal status over that individual.

No person under the age of 21 could apply

A predetermined set of specific religious laws and the sanctions imposed would be reviewed by a neutral church committee to garner general acceptance. The laws could vary from church to church however if the board found them to be grossly unbalanced that church would have to revise their plan or petition the decision.

The church would have to apply for status as a law sanctioning status and pay the government for the registration so that the program would be self-funded.

Any church that did not apply or did not get approved would not qualify. Any person not found to be of sound mind of body would be ineligible and any person who did not or could not get a card would be disqualified. Felons would be barred from the program.

Possible sanctions could include community service and or fines for the following

Having other God’s before Yahweh
Adultery
Abortion
Working on the Sabbath
Taking the Lord’s name in vain


What this would not cover is laws that are already covered by state and federal laws. For instance, if a card carry Christian was prosecuted by the state for theft than the church could not also prosecute him.


The theory being that this way Christians can have their christian laws but non-christians would not be bound by it.


Does this sound feasible and if so what would you change?

i would not do it, but if others wanted to, i don't see why they should not

question: would those under the age of 21 be allowed to have any part in the church?

 

[MaddLlama]

It wouldn't do any good as far as I can tell. Those churches that would impliment this plan would see a huge drop in membership, and over time they would be just as dissatisfied with power only over thier church and the members would become just as fanatical, if not more fanatical than the CN,CR,CI cults.
Really, it would just make the problem worse.

 

[robtex]

question: would those under the age of 21 be allowed to have any part in the church?

They could be part of the church just not sanctioned by church laws.

 

[robtex]

It wouldn't do any good as far as I can tell. Those churches that would impliment this plan would see a huge drop in membership, and over time they would be just as dissatisfied with power only over thier church and the members would become just as fanatical, if not more fanatical than the CN,CR,CI cults.
Really, it would just make the problem worse.

If they had a huge drop in membership than they would either have to adust their laws drop the program or go out of busines. Why do you think the members would become fanatical?