The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, recently printed a speech by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron commemorating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.
I was a little disappointed that, in its brief introduction to the speech, it didn’t mention the Catholic alternative to the King James—the Douay-Rheims Version, which actually was finished in 1609, two years before the King James was finished in 1611—but I was fascinated to read the speech.
I’m not a fan of David Cameron, and I most vehemently disagree with some of his views, but the speech he delivered on the King James was the most remarkable political speech I’ve read since I don’t know when. There were aspects to it that were astonishing.
Given the deathgrip that secularism has on British culture—where even shows aimed significantly at children, like Doctor Who, are littered with references to homosexual marriage—I would never have expected Cameron to say some of the things he did in the speech. Many are hard to imagine an American president saying as well. Consider:
The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history. And none of us should be frightened of recognising this. . . .
[W]e are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong. I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger. But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend. . . .
The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country. Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.” Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love… …pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities… …these are the values we treasure. Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. And I believe we should all stand up and defend them.
Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour. I think these arguments are profoundly wrong. And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people… …what we stand for… …and the kind of society we want to build.
First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths… …simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity. Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France. Why? Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too. And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all.
Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgement on the behaviour of others… …fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality… …or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code. Let’s be clear. Faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality. There are Christians who don’t live by a moral code. And there are atheists and agnostics who do. But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction.
And whether inspired by faith or not – that direction, that moral code, matters. Whether you look at the riots last summer… …the financial crash and the expenses scandal… …or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world… …one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it anymore. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality… …has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots.
The absence of any real accountability, or moral code… …allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society. And when it comes to fighting violent extremism, the almost fearful passive tolerance of religious extremism that has allowed segregated communities to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values… … has not contained that extremism but allowed it to grow and prosper… …in the process blackening the good name of the great religions that these extremists abuse for their own purposes. Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. . . .
I believe the church – and indeed all our religious leaders and their communities in Britain – have a vital role to play in helping to achieve this. I have never really understood the argument some people make about the church not getting involved in politics. To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. So I don’t think we should be shy or frightened of this.
Now, not everything Cameron says in this speech is great. At one point he takes an implicit swipe at the Catholic Church for not ordaining women to the priesthood, and his many-faiths-makes-us-stronger idea is just muddleheaded. If religion is about the truth then a diversity of religious beliefs is not a strength.
But can you imagine any recent American president saying, “We are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so”? Can you imagine Barack Obama saying this? Or George W. Bush? Or Bill Clinton? Or George Bush Sr.? How far back would you have to go to find a president that would say that? Yet America is at least as Christian as England.
What are your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
Good article. You write about diversity and truth. This is my difficulty with god. No revealed single truth. Even the Catholic church has different truths I.e. Benedictine vs. Franciscan vs. Jesuit.
But can you imagine any recent American president saying, “We are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so”?
Well, I would argue that we fall under the category of “a secular country like France.” Remember the UK has a national church. You can argue that our country was founded with Christian values, but France has a profoundly Christian heritage too (despite the anti-religious Revolution).
I never thought of Dr. Who as a kids’ show. Its following here is certainly much older, in my experience.
And actually yes, I can kind of imagine GWB saying that. Maybe it’s just me.
I had no idea England was a Christian country. Seriously. They are the leaders of every immoral push throughout the world with America right by their side.
I think that there is a strong tendency to see other cultures as more secular than our own, especially when they have a different way of expressing religion. The two countries I live in provide opposite examples. In Canada (my home country) there has been a strong tendency to “keep religion to yourself.” It’s not much a political thing (although you see it in politics) or embarrassment, but it’s just seen as something deeply personal. In some places, talking about your religion is kind of like getting undressed in front of people - just getting a little too personal. As a result, there are people and groups of people in Canada who seem very un-religious when you meet them, but are surprisingly religious when you get a little deeper into their life; they believe, they live it out, but have no desire to draw attention to it or get into a public debate. Even for those of us who are devoutly Christian, we often see our American counterparts as being a little too loud and public about their faith. (Personally, I prefer a balance.) I’ve heard that this Canadian trait has British roots. If this is the case, that could contribute to the (mis)perception that Britain is very secular. It also makes Prime Minister Cameron’s speech that much bolder, and that much more challenging to British Christians.
According to the 2001 UK census, 71% of the country considers itself Christian. (This is what people say they are, not by official membership numbers.)
On the other hand, Mexico (where I live now) is very openly and overtly religious, focused mostly on outward displays of Catholicism (crossing yourself, kneeling for prayers, blessings used as greetings - “May God bless you” etc.) But there’s a strong impression among Protestant northerners that it’s all superficial, just going through the motions and there really are very few Mexican Christians. Again, once you get a little deeper into the culture, you realize there’s a lot more sincere deep-rooted faith behind many of the outward signs than we’d first think.
In the end, secularism is a problem through most of the world these days. Another group to consider in all of this, is “secular Christians.” I’ve often come across Christians (in all cultures and churches), who rather than abandoning their faith, continue to believe on some level, but live a secular life. These people would call themselves Christians on the census form, but (in contrast to the “keep-it-to-yourself people I mentioned above) there wouldn’t be much to discover about their faith, even getting to know them closer. This makes the numbers and perception of who’s secular and who’s not even blurrier.
But in the end, I’d say a country where 71% of the population calls themselves Christian (like the U.K.) can fairly claim to be a Christian country. Perhaps they just need a bit of American zip to their faith to bring it out to the public square a little more - perhaps Mr. Cameron’s speech will help with that.
Years ago, I heard Huston Smith discussing the world’s religions, and his approach seemed to be the idea of “many paths, one truth,” and that has always struck me as similar to Karl Rahner’s concept of the anonymous Christian. It seems that if everyone in a society is truly pursuing the One Truth (which would be the true God), the society will be on the right track.
In USA, where churches are strictly separated from the state atheist has no chances to be elected for president. In my country - Poland, where over 90% of population are Catholics, president-agnostic was choosen for two cadencies and was the most popular among polish people. Both cases are a bit peculiar.
I don’t really believe that a country that started a bloody revolution instead of simply giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and had an anti-Catholic bias since before it was founded would be considered “Christian”. Oh, and kicking the Native Americans out was really nice of us as well.
There’s nothing we can do about it now, sure, but there are countries *way* more Christian in nature than the USA, and I’m saying this as a US citizen. Even most of our founding fathers weren’t exactly Catholic or Christian; if I remember correctly, they were mainly “Deists”.
It is sad that poor Rover is so confused about God. I could be wrong, but, I believe that George W. did say that we were a Christian country & of course, the Clintons call themselves “christian”, but, sadly to say,it is just a name of which even many “catholics” use without a clue to what it means, which is a lot more than being baptized in a church. Your article is great & right on. How much longer before we can stop OBAMANISM in it’s tracks & become a true Christian nation once again? +JMJ+
JMJ, it is correct that George W Bush said that we were a Christian nation. In fact he also said that God wished him to be president. Yet, there were others, namely, James Madison, who signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion….”. The United States is not now, never was, and hopefully never will be a Christian nation, but remain a nation of diversity. Although early America had many evangelical protestants, and Patrick Henry fought fo a Theocracy, times were changing. As the renaissance brought an end to the Middle Ages, so the Enlightenment put an end to the Age of Absolutism. The world had been deemed static until such notables as Darwin et al enlightened us with the ebb and flow of a dynamic and changing world. Our two notables; Franklin and Jefferson were enriched with these changing ideas put forth in our Constitution. The end of the 18th century highlights the Enlightenment, which for once placed emphasis on science and reason, replacing religion and superstition, ending divine right monarchs, putting to rest the Reformation. The rationale is not a numbers game of how many were evangelical Christians, but dynamic change of culture, philosophy, science and literature. These issues have persisted to the present in the form of counter enlightenment; e.g. Pius X and sins of Modernism, Creationism and the teaching of intelligent design.
What we have in stop OBAMANISM is the expressed result of anti-intellectualism, anti-science or the product of rigor mortis of the brain.
@Ryan Peters
The founding fathers of our country had a reason to start a revolution.
King George started the war with the rest of the states long before the rest of the country joined Massachusetts because of George’s abuse of power and horrendous and overbearing overresponse in responding to a relatively minor issue of taxation.
When you have a king who is supposed to protect you arming and funding Indians to attack you, to kill men, women and children, kidnapping citizens abroad without will to force them to serve in the navy and kill their own countrymen, establishing kangaroo courts to punish political dissidents, and ACTIVELY WAGED WAR AGAINST HIS OWN CITIZENS, giving to ceasar what is ceasar’s doesn’t have the same meaning.
This is BEFORE the declaration of independence was signed and the revolution formally began.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.”
“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.”
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
BTW the founding fathers who claimed to be deist also claimed to be Christian, including Hamilton and Paine, with only Jefferson not embracing the Christian title after his second presidential run. And even then the definition of deism from yesteryear is very different from the current definition of deism.
The founding fathers also wrote extensively that a their republican form of government can not stand without religion. See Washington’s farewell address for a comment on that thought. John Jay even tried to have Catholics expelled from public office because of Jay’s misconceptions of how Catholics understood authority, and the nature of religion and the states, but ultimately this matter was by the grace of God left up to the states to decide.
I think it is a little out of proportion to say “I don’t really believe that a country that started a bloody revolution instead of simply giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and had an anti-Catholic bias since before it was founded would be considered “Christian”.” And that is not even addressing the Indian comment.
” . . . his many-faiths-makes-us-stronger idea is just muddleheaded.”
To a person who believes he or she belongs to the one, true religion his idea is muddleheaded. But if you believe that the various faiths are more in the position of blind men trying to describe a universe-sized elephant, it makes sense. Clearly Cameron values religion more for its potential to help maintain a stable, comfortable society than for any transcendant purpose.
rover serton-“This is my difficulty with god. No revealed single truth. Even the Catholic church has different truths I.e. Benedictine vs. Franciscan vs. Jesuit.”
Errr…. the Benedictines, Franciscans and Jesuits don’t have different ‘truths’, they all share the same one. The Catholic one. They just perform different roles in how that same singular truth is spread and achieved. Like different staff members in a hospital. Not all perform the same function, not all study the same thing, but are all together in service to the same thing. Like the different parts of your own body. God has revealed a single truth. He did so in the Catholic Church.
———
On the topic of separate religions. It is true in a sense only so far as that all religions are seeking the same goal. Bliss, and joy in the afterlife when they die.
The situation can be described thus…
There is a mountain. At the top of the mountain is the truth of the afterlife and the joy that it potentially contains. At the bottom are all different kinds of men, looking to scale the mountain and reach that same summit. They devise different tools, different methods and take different routes.
But the mountain, being life in this world, is trecherous. There are dangers, some will doom you, some will trap you, some will confuse you, some will get you lost. Thus far no-one has been able to get there, they make a little progress, but never quite make it, some start to doubt, some come up with different perspectives of the worth of continuing to do this and what they possibly have to gain.
One day however, something that is and always existed at the top of the summitt could see these men of different ideas and creeds trying to scale it and always failing to make it. So that being who is and who always existed there decided to reveal itself to some of these men, to tell them about what exists there and to make a path to get there. That being even journeyed down to their level to show them the way.
That summitt is death, the afterlife, it is heaven, it is where God resides and it is the goal we all look to in our hearts. The mountain is the world and our lives.
Many men ponder and come up with ideas, but having never been to the summitt can only guess, estimate and provide vague ideas as to what is there and how to get there. How much confidence can we place in them? If we are improperly equipped to climb that mountain or not prepared for the difficulties, we risk falling to our doom, this is hell. With a risk so great, how wise is it to risk our souls on worldy philosophy and men who know nothing of the summitt but instead treat it like the valleys and plains below as the only truth?
So there are only two ways of knowing the truth of the summitt.
1) That something from the summitt who knows what is there comes down to tell us. It reveals itself to us. Many world religions claim this, that they received this knowledge from one from the summitt, who is God.
OR
2) A man from below must reach the summitt and journey back to tell us what it there. In other words. A man must die physically, go to the afterlife, and then return back from the dead to inform us what is there. Only ONE RELIGION makes this claim. It claims the former (revelation from the summitt) and the latter (a man of our level going to the destination and somehow coming back to inform us). Thus that religion then has a greater claim and should obviously be given greater consideration above the claims of others, and thus invested in for the most sure path to reach the summit. Anything else is gambling foolishly.
Dear Jimmy Akin,
It is a good thing to have a counterweight against the King James Bible.
This translation endorses the absolutism for the monarch.
We have seen the same in the Netherlands with the Statenvertaling.
Here were several Dutch translations available that were even better.
The same with England, where Wycliff and Tyndale did good work, the Geneva Bible, the Coverdale translation etc.
They were all older than the King James and the Rheims Douay.
With respect,
Bonne
+J.M.J+
Wasn’t the Douay-Rheims produced in France, since Catholicism was outlawed in England at the time? Apart from the English language, it arguably has less to do with England than the KJV.
Also, while Dr. Who was traditionally for children, the latest installments are hardly child-friendly, IMHO. I think it’s now for the grown-up fans.
people confuse catholicism with christianity. Christians dont have a human holy father, nor do the bow to graven images.
It is different. In the U.S. there is a total separation of Church and State, but the U.K. is nevertheless really officially a Christian country, with Anglican Church as the State Church and the Queen as the head of the State Church. I think Mr. Akin, whom I respect and like, forgets this important fact. No, I can’t imagine a U.S. president saying that the U.S. is per se a Christian country, nor do I find it proper for him to say so, though it is historically correct to say that Protestantism played and is playing a significant role in the U.S. society. But the U.S. is not officially a Christian country.
Re: rover serton
“This is my difficulty with god [sic]. No revealed single truth.”
Rover, there *is* a single revealed truth. This revelation was first gradually given to the Jewish people; the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, is the fulfillment of that revelation and that whole truth was then given to all people, Jew and Gentile alike! Let Jimmy share the proof with you: call and speak to him, or any of the other knowledgeable guests, on Catholic Answers Live. (Check their radio calendar here: http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar. You can even download FREE mp3’s of previous shows.)
I think what is confusing to many people is that there are so many belief systems claiming to be the only truth or that there is no one truth. The Catholic Church is the only faith that can prove she has, believes, and teaches the WHOLE revealed truth.
“Even the Catholic church [sic] has different truths I.e.[sic] Benedictine vs. Franciscan vs. Jesuit.”
These are not different *truths*, they are different charisms or ways of living the one God-given truth. You wouldn’t say that a surgeon believes something different about medicine than an oncologist or family doctor does! The field of medicine encompass so many different areas of disease that some have an interest in and the talents to focus on surgery, some oncology, etc. Well the one truth that God has revealed to humanity through His Church encompasses so many aspects of our lives that we have our ‘specialist’ areas also. This is a great blessing to humanity. The Franciscans, for example, can identify with the poor and know their needs and feel how they are devalued by society because they themselves live a life of poverty, begging for their sustenance. The Franciscans are then a better witness to us all on how we might not have many material things yet still can be happy and loved, on how we ought to love even the poor.
Rover, start your journey home. We need *your* talents, and you need all of God’s unconditional love for you!
Pax
Lisa deMOAOC
Tiber Swim Team member
chris -
Perhaps you should also stop calling your own father ‘father’? After all, your literalist interpretation condemns you for doing so… but then you have a problem with the fact that your father is your father, right? So shall we now ignore real world facts to fit Protestant errors?
And Catholics don’t worship graven images. Or perhaps Protestants should also stop bowing in prayer and reverence to the Bible and stop putting up crosses and 10 commandments statutes and nativity scenes because that would be idolatory? After all then you’d be seen to be worshiping a book and symbols and not God, right? Perhaps you better go tell Moses to let the Israelites know not to bow to the bronze snake? And the Aaronite priests not to bow to the Ark of the convenent in reverence? Etc. etc.
It’s a shame people get fooled into thinking the Protestants and Evangelicals (also protestants) represent true Christianity given the heresy they promote, and how they disobey the Bible and try to corrupt it and pretend they are doing otherwise. The secular world of today that rejects God and morality is an inevitable logical outcome of Protestan doctrines where every man is free to interpret God’s word as they like and place themselves as judge over Gods own authority and His own established Church, thinking they can go to heaven so long as they claim their feelings about God are sincere. Protestants do not recognize the Kingdom of God, modeled on the Davidic Kingdom of Israel, with its Queen and its prime minister that is now present in the Catholic Church, that you reject in your foolishness and pride. Who do you think you are? Jesus? Why do you disobey Christ and persecute Him?
MS: Honoring the Reformation, does not make England a true Christian nation, nor is there total separation of Church and State in the U.S. Why do you suppose our founding fathers insisted that Christian principles be taught in public education if our nation was not founded on Natural Law and Christian Principles? We have those in America who are trying to separate God from state and promote principles that are beginning to promote widespread immorality and licentiousness. We have freedom of religion because of Christian principles, not in spite of them. You may be surprised to know Catholics have played a big part in our culture as well. Our founders intended us to be a Christian nation. Take a course to American history to learn what you are obvioudly missing.
Thank God no American president will stand up and make comments like those of David Cameron. Thank God we are a secular nation.
Look at the spectacle of the Republican race right now, with Right Wing religious candidates trying to outdo one another in their attack on the rights of women to reproductive choice and reproductive medicine. Thank God this is the lunatic fringe. And we do not make over the village for the village lunatic.
Anglicanism will be done in generations. He is trying a failed strategy of the Anglican Communion by inviting people to Protestantism. Been there, done that. Try Catholicism for a change, we are still here and still standing.
Anne Rice,
Thank God religion is enshrined in our Constitution. Thank God homosexuality is outlawed and murder is punished. Of course, abortion is murder, so the law is inconsistent.
Secularism is a separation of God from Country. It leads to destruction in the end. Look at the former Soviet Union.
Watch the “YouTube named Obama admits to being Muslim”. He even goes as far as to say we (USA) are NOT a Christian country. He praises Islam and Jihad. Watch this!
Anne Rice; “Thank God religion is enshrined in our Constitution”. That it is not. Nowhere in our Constitution do we have any mention of Xtianity or God. We do have exclusionary principles forbidding Congress to make any law respecting a religion and secondly no religious test be required. Most confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, but that God is the God of nature, fitting a deist attitude. Bernadet; “Obama goes as far as to say we are NOT a Christian country”...and rightly so. Please see my above post, including the Treaty of Tripoli signed by none other than President James Madison. We are and so shall remain a nation of diversity respecting all civil values.
I could fall off of my seat, that Cameron said these things, even if not all that he said was good. Just goes to show that people can sometimes really surprise you! Maybe there’s hope for Britain yet.
Does anyone else think it’s funny that Anne Rice is thanking GOD for secularism and that religion is, apparently, a lunatic fringe?
jesuiticsl: You need to study the great impact Cicero and the Natural Law based on the laws of the Supreme Creator he championed had on our Founders. Our nation has a religious heritage.
Bob Rowland, indeed, our nation does have a religious heritage, but is not a Xtian nation. Cicero has nothing to do with it. As far as ‘natural law’ concerns, the Middle Ages have come to an end and science ought now prevail. Natural Law remains a vestige for those who continue to believe that ‘reason alone’ attains knowledge…that law allowed Aquinas and others to determine that women are inferior, to sacrifice to the gods, and myriad other myths. We now have a major political party with candidates vying for the presidency, who do not believe in evolution…and remains anti-intellectual and anti-science party.
1. I wish the US was a Christian nation, we were founded on the basis that Christian values are great but must be seperated from CHRIST and any CHURCH. This mindset has failed miserably, the only way to teach Christian values is through the foundation of the teachings of CHRIST. Some men are closer Closer to Christ than others through self-sacrifice and Humility and Charity, these men do not seek political power.
2. THOMAS AQUAINAS never said women were inferior, if you have no understanding of Christian philosophy, reading the works of the saints is like reading something in a language you can’t translate.
hh60f7, Aquinas certainly did state women are inferior; to emphasize such point he stated that the creation of a soul in men and women is different in time from conception, since the male is a much more complicated individual. This thinking was infused throughout the church then and has not changed much since, if at all.
All too often, more than occasionally, we have been put upon with the statement that America is a Xtian nation, founded upon Xtian principles or as you say ‘values’. Yet no one postulates what Xtian values are…the expectation is that taken upon the words; we all know the meaning. In order to be a Xtian value that principle ought to be exclusive to the Xtian religion. If not, and shared by others including other religions and atheists; it is an universal value, not a Xtian one.
As I stated in earlier post, America was founded upon the principles of the Enlightenment. It is imperative to learn that. Most of our founding fathers had serious doubts about God, and were much more inclined toward nature, and did not involve any magical thinking. Jefferson purged the Bible of all miracles, did not believe in the Trinity, souls or angels, and even the existence of God.
I think you have to take Cameron’s notion of ‘Christian’ with a bucket or two of salt. He’s talking about some vague Church-of-Englandy/“be nice to evryone”/popularist/“values-based” thingy here. His views on abortion and his recent very loud announcement that he supports marriage swiftly takes the shallow shine off any idea that means much at all.
ummm….that should have said ‘gay marriage’ of course…
- chris
Every human being has a biological father. And even then adoptd children still call their adopted father, ‘father.’ And anyone who looks after a group of people like a parent is given the affectionate term of ‘father.’ In this case, because the Pope is a consecrated priest and a holy man, and head of Christ’s true Church, he is affectionately called the ‘Holy Father.’ If you are an American, do you refer to the ‘Founding Fathers’ of your constitution? Are you disobeying God by doing this?
And Catholics do not worship graven images (practice idolatory) as you impy. Please stop spreading this lie. They venerate saints and petition them to pray for us because they are in heaven and their prayers are offered to God before His throne (read the Bible). And Catholics use statues and crosses as prayer aids. No different than Protestants who bow to crosses and the Bible when they pray or set up Nativity Scenes or 10 Commandments plaques. Catholics are the only ones who follow Christ, and correctly interpret the Bible under the authority Christ gave to the only one Church He founded. If you want to be a true Christian, you must become a Catholic.
- Anne Rice
God is not pleased that there are secular nations, and neither should you be, unless you love division, confusing conflicting ideologies competing against each other, unpeaceful and constantly at war with each other internally. There will be no peace and secularity will eventually boil over and produce great conflict thanks to growing division. Secularity is itself a self defeating and meaningless ideology and you will go down with it when it inevitably sinks when it can no longer keep control of the situation.
And women do not have a right to commit murder. And a society that contracepts will only find itself killing itself off contrary to the obvious natural law of reproduction. It is self-genocidal and breeds selfish-ness, and endangers the soul to reject the underlying message of creation and sexuality, and thus misunderstanding these are they are properly intended by their creator, people misunderstand God and are therefore inclined to reject Him and therefore risk choosing hell over heaven when they die. It is lunacy to adopt the contradictory and destructivenature of secularism as the standard of life, and it is lunacy to murder innocent life and pretend that you have a right to do so for your own conveniences or to fix wrongs that might be done to you.
- Jesuitical
I am in agreement with you that America wasn’t built on Christianity (Catholicism), but rather Protestant’s erronous ‘Christianity’, and therefore there could be no agreement amongst the divided groups of Protestants about what Christianity completely is. And secularism and the further abandonment of Christian morality and taking up of Christian revisionism are inevitable outcomes of Protestant ideology which sought to make every man their own interpreter of the Religious texts they inherited from the Catholic Church devoid of their proper authority and place in Christ’s Catholic Church. Still you in no way can argue that America wasn’t founded on Christian principles that its founding fathers followed as they best believed under the various erronous interpretations of Protestantism they held regardless of whether they took liberal or orthodox interpretations of the Bible.
Obama is right that America is not a Christian country. If anything in the eyes of Protestants, it is now a post-Christian country. And in the eyes of Catholics, it was never properly a ‘Christian’ country in the first place, but a Protestant one. And the fruits of Protestantism is further division and abandonment of authentic Christianity as each man sees fit.
Furthermore, your rejection of natural law is unscientific and unintellectual. Natural law is still maintained and still exists and is still active. And if ‘reason alone’ is not sufficient for knowledge, then what is? Do you want us to jettisson reason entirely? Science cannot operate without reason and logic. How do you propose science be conducted devoid of reason? Finally ‘evolution’ was never a scientific fact. It was always a religious ideology and origin fable of naturalists. The scientific Method cannot be used to time travel back to the past to observe it happen. There is no evidence in fossils or in current observations to see macro-evolution occuring except horizontally, and if vertical, then downward towards less complexity, never greater in contradiction of known natural laws. Current Dating methods are based on unprovable ideologically-driven assumptions that we cannot scientifically know. And the evolutionary fable is only upheld by a consensus of a majority of scientists that adhere to the religion of naturalism or simply parroting what they are told to believe without critically examining it for themselves, more often because they are discouraged from doing so to prevent questioning the religious dogma of evolution and inevitable progress. Evolution and naturalism as practsed in the scientific community is an organized religion. Nothing more. It is not anti-intellectual or anti-science to reject evolution. It was never scientific at all, and is in conflict with many known, observable and established scientific facts; it is a religious belief being forced upon society by athiests and secularists in hypocritical contradiction to their cries about supposed ‘Church/State’ separation which is never what they think it means. There’s a reason more and more people and credentialed scientists are abandoning support for and belief in evolution. And it’s because they know all too well what it really is. The emperor has no clothes, and I recommend actually critically approaching evolution and seeing it for what it always has been.
Thank God few pay attention to Anne Rice rants… She changes her mind so frequently.
Oh, and always expect a slap at the Catholic Church from an Englishman. They have never outgrown their pettiness. Guess they know in their hearts that it was founded by Christ. They “Church” split away when the King kept adding new wives and killing the old.
and the TRUE CHURCH would not give approval…
This country was started during the Enlightenment, not the Dark Ages. Christians obeyed God and Country—intellectuals protested oppression and rebelled. That’s why there is separation between the church and state—so that religion would be protected from government and vice-versa.
There is no need to control politics by religion or theocracy or sharia.
There is no need for politics at all.
What for advantage has politics brought, except for wars and other misery?
Politics and their taxes have made it almost impossible to fulfil the peoples moral obligations toward the others of humankind.
I don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone to claim that “this is a Christian country.” Countries belong to Caesar. The civic realm is rightly a realm for citizens no matter their religious convictions or lack of any convictions. The standard is applied is different though not immune to the influence of people of faith. Take the example of gay marriage. I believe it’s wholly appropriate for civil weddings, but never appropriate for Catholic weddings. The failure to draw this distinction leads to many problems. One of the greatest temptation when one takes the position that a given country is a Christian nation is that it acts as a Christian nation. Neither Britain nor the U.S. act as Christian nations. If they did, they would not possess nuclear weapons.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.