And the broken home and it’s increase is a common occurrence around the world, not just the USA.[/quote]
Oh yes. Especially with the hyper-secularizaiton of the West. A graying, barren population. Which now, ironically, seems to place it’s faith in young workers supplied by the larger families of devoutly religious immigrants. All to keep the nanny state afloat. The same nanny state needed to replace the fractured status of the family among their native population. A suicidal people![/quote]
Pair-bonding is a natural occurrence, and isn’t the province of any institution.
People fall in and out of love all the time. Some are lucky to hold onto this feeling for life, some are not. “Traditional” values won’t change this, no mater how hard you hope it will. More likely than not, people will feel obligated to stay in unhappy marriages, and that isn’t fair to the couple.
People fall in and out of love all the time. Some are lucky to hold onto this feeling for life, some are not. “Traditional” values won’t change this, no mater how hard you hope it will. More likely than not, people will feel obligated to stay in unhappy marriages, and that isn’t fair to the couple.[/quote]
Or the children of that couple. Ask the baby boomers who watched their parents go through some fun years after WWII…
[quote]Otep wrote:
But what about pacifism? I would describe pacifism as a ‘Judeo-Christian Value’, being a value espoused by Jesus a number of times, and one for which he eventually attained martyrdom with. But the United States was not founded on this. Is that becuase it wasn’t included in the big-bag-of-Judeo-Christian-Values, or because the term simply gets made up as it’s propogators go along?[/quote]
Hrm. I prefer the use of peaceful instead of the use of pacifism. Also, I wouldn’t extend Christ’s martyrdom to the idea of a pacifist state. It’s a common enough mistake, though.
But most of all, the Founders had no need to install/found the Judeo-Christian Value. It was there, thriving.
[quote]Otep wrote:
But what about pacifism? I would describe pacifism as a ‘Judeo-Christian Value’, being a value espoused by Jesus a number of times, and one for which he eventually attained martyrdom with. But the United States was not founded on this. Is that becuase it wasn’t included in the big-bag-of-Judeo-Christian-Values, or because the term simply gets made up as it’s propogators go along?[/quote]
Hrm. I prefer the use of peaceful instead of the use of pacifism. Also, I wouldn’t extend Christ’s martyrdom to the idea of a pacifist state. It’s a common enough mistake, though.
But most of all, the Founders had no need to install/found the Judeo-Christian Value. It was there, thriving.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
How come no one seems to know what the values are, yet they know that they oppose them. Almost daily. In this forum even. [/quote]
And yet, you still haven’t defined them to clarify for us.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I’ve opposed the use of the term to describe the basis of the founding of America. For the values to be “Judeo-Christian” they would have to be endemic to people of a Judeo-Christian religion. But they aren’t. In fact a good majority are universal to civilized culture.
Are you two pulling my leg? No, honestly, I’m asking. Let’s do it this way, since I don’t believe you guys are taking this seriously (I hope…). If posting one of these values would cause Mak to share a comic strip from his favorite atheist site, it might be a Judeo-Christian value. If Mak uses the term “Pair-bonding,” it might be a Judeo-Christian value. If Mak uses the word ‘Puritanism’, it might must be a Judeo-Christian value.
Sorry, but I’m not going to play this game. Come to the discussion honestly, or not at all. Having watched both of you often ridicule such values, you know damn well what they are.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are you two pulling my leg? No, honestly, I’m asking. Let’s do it this way, since I don’t believe you guys are taking this seriously (I hope…). If posting one of these values would cause Mak to share a comic strip from his favorite atheist site, it might be a Judeo-Christian value. If Mak uses the term “Pair-bonding,” it might be a Judeo-Christian value. If Mak use the word Puritanism, it might must be a Judeo-Christian value.
Sorry, but I’m not going to play this game. Come to the discussion honestly, or not at all. Having watched both of you often ridicule such values, you know damn well what they are.
[/quote]
I’ve ridiculed stupidity (i.e. puritanism, homophobia, general xenophobia) and I’ve stated that the USA wasn’t founded to be a Christian nation (unless God put the Treaty of Tripoli there to test our faith). Those two things are allowed to be separate.
Like I said, unless you’re providing something endemic to Christianity (because let’s face it, that’s what we’re really talking about here) then you’re referencing something that is being made up and/or stolen (from humanity as a whole) as you go along.
And the broken home and it’s increase is a common occurrence around the world, not just the USA.[/quote]
Oh yes. Especially with the hyper-secularizaiton of the West. A graying, barren population. Which now, ironically, seems to place it’s faith in young workers supplied by the larger families of devoutly religious immigrants. All to keep the nanny state afloat. The same nanny state needed to replace the fractured status of the family among their native population. A suicidal people![/quote]
You sound like Headhunter amigo. Get help before you deteriorate further.[/quote]
Actually, do me the favor of picking apart my assertions. Have we not become more secular? Is the west in general not seeing a graying of it’s population? With low birthrates? And then, with what birthrates we have, high rates of broken homes? Do broken homes not have socio/economic consequences? Doesn’t it take young workers to fund the nanny state for the elderly and the non-worker? Doesn’t a common argument for mass immigration concern the need for a younger work force. A work force that is no longer being supplied in large enough numbers by the native population? Please, by all means, point out my errors.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are you two pulling my leg? No, honestly, I’m asking. Let’s do it this way, since I don’t believe you guys are taking this seriously (I hope…). If posting one of these values would cause Mak to share a comic strip from his favorite atheist site, it might be a Judeo-Christian value. If Mak uses the term “Pair-bonding,” it might be a Judeo-Christian value. If Mak use the word Puritanism, it might must be a Judeo-Christian value.
Sorry, but I’m not going to play this game. Come to the discussion honestly, or not at all. Having watched both of you often ridicule such values, you know damn well what they are.
[/quote]
I’ve ridiculed stupidity (i.e. puritanism, homophobia, general xenophobia) and I’ve stated that the USA wasn’t founded to be a Christian nation (unless God put the Treaty of Tripoli there to test our faith). Those two things are allowed to be separate.
Like I said, unless you’re providing something endemic to Christianity (because let’s face it, that’s what we’re really talking about here) then you’re referencing something that is being made up and/or stolen (from humanity as a whole) as you go along.[/quote]
Oh for the love of…
Being founded on Christianty, and being founded on Judeo-Christian values, are two very different things. We had/have no established religion. Noone has argued that. The assumption…no, the reality…was that the people, by far and wide, were upright Christian men. The necessary moral backbone didn’t have to be established. The people’s religious faith provided it. Their communities enforced it.
By the way, what you’d refer to as ‘puritanism, homophobia, general xenophobia,’ was the reality.
Being founded on Christianty, and being founded on Judeo-Christian values, are two very different things. We had/have no established religion. Noone has argued that. The assumption…no, the reality…was that the people, by far and wide, were upright Christian men. The necessary moral backbone didn’t have to be established. The people’s religious faith provided it. Their communities enforced it.
By the way, what you’d refer to as ‘puritanism, homophobia, general xenophobia,’ was the reality. [/quote]
Your claiming the country was founded on something when you can’t even define it.
Being founded on Christianty, and being founded on Judeo-Christian values, are two very different things. We had/have no established religion. Noone has argued that. The assumption…no, the reality…was that the people, by far and wide, were upright Christian men. The necessary moral backbone didn’t have to be established. The people’s religious faith provided it. Their communities enforced it.
By the way, what you’d refer to as ‘puritanism, homophobia, general xenophobia,’ was the reality. [/quote]
Your claiming the country was founded on something when you can’t even define it.[/quote]
Traditional views of marriage and divorce…Traditional sexual norms…Charity…Must I really go on?
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)
