"judeo-Christian vs Greco-Roman influences and the American Revol

[barca]

There might be a couple of valid reasons for "following the path of Empire" (i.e. conquering, subjugating and ruling over other countries); trying to copycat a nation from 2000 years ago and its political ecology is definitively not one of them.

 

 

There may also be valid reasons for not following the path of empire.

 

As far as trying to copycat the Romans, isn't that what the founding fathers did when they drew upon the Classics?

[Ludovicus]

It was always a no-brainer to me that many of the values expressed by the american revolutionary movement were derived from the Greco-roman world. The abolition of kings, the foundation of a republic, democracy, etc.

 

Many individuals from the Christian Right believe that The United States was founded on "Judeo-Christian" priciples, period. NO DISCUSSION.

 

I don't deny that religion played a role in the revolution. In fact some people in England referred to it as a Presbyterian uprising.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts on these issues? Where can I find scholarly literature on this subject??

 

The Christian Right will not look at the evidence that the Founding Fathers, though Christian, held very few beliefs that we find today in fundamentalist, theocratic Christianity. I find it refreshing that these early leaders, many of whom were Deists, saw the separation of Church and State as a fundamental principle for the protection of religious freedom. Thus so far have many Christians strayed from their own history.

[barca]

...the Founding Fathers, though Christian, held very few beliefs that we find today in fundamentalist, theocratic Christianity...

 

Most of them were Christian in their religious beliefs, but they saw the limits of theology in forming a government. Their political theory came mostly from looking at models from the classical world, modernized through the enlightenment.

 

Was the theory of relativity based on Judeo-Christian principles because Einstein was Jewish?

[barca]

The Christian Right will not look at the evidence that the Founding Fathers, though Christian, held very few beliefs that we find today in fundamentalist, theocratic Christianity. I find it refreshing that these early leaders, many of whom were Deists, saw the separation of Church and State as a fundamental principle for the protection of religious freedom. Thus so far have many Christians strayed from their own history.

 

 

Here's an interesting article regarding the modern christian right,

 

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...l?hpid=talkbox1

 

Does it make sense for fundamentalists to follow the Nicean Creed?

[sylla]

I find it refreshing that these early leaders, many of whom were Deists, saw the separation of Church and State as a fundamental principle for the protection of religious freedom.

That is only logical; paradoxically or not, for their own nature most religions tend not to be tolerant with the other faiths, as each one of them considers itself as the sole truth, not just "one truth" among many. For the same reason, arguably most defenders of religious freedom ever have been at least agnostics.

 

Does it make sense for fundamentalists to follow the Nicean Creed?

Nope; in fact, depending on your specific definition for the former, both terms would be almost surely mutually exclusive.

[Primus Pilus]

The Christian Right will not look at the evidence that the Founding Fathers, though Christian, held very few beliefs that we find today in fundamentalist, theocratic Christianity. I find it refreshing that these early leaders, many of whom were Deists, saw the separation of Church and State as a fundamental principle for the protection of religious freedom. Thus so far have many Christians strayed from their own history.

 

I differ with you on a couple of issues - but not necessarily in the manner in which you might think. In any case, we do know that there were several prominent Deists among the founding fathers (as well as revolutionaries): Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and most prominently George Washington, but by contrast we don't know whether the majority of the founding fathers were deists or Christians based on the presence of these and likely other prominent non Christians. We can look through the list of notable members of the 1st Continental Congress, the signers of the Declaration and the members of the Constitutional Convention and find many quotations in support of and adversarial to Christianity (or a particular Church

[barca]

Does it make sense for fundamentalists to follow the Nicean Creed?

Nope; in fact, depending on your specific definition for the former, both terms would be almost surely mutually exclusive.

 

The article identified fundamentalists as those who followed the tenets of the Niagra Bible Conference in the late 19th century. The term could be applied more loosely to many of the religious movements dating back to the Great Awakening. The Methodists could be included in this group, and I believe they do follow the creed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

 

There are many nonfundamentalist protestant churches that follow the Nicene Creed, which I find interesting, since it mentions the "Holy Catholic Church." I realize that the word "catholic" has more than one meaning, but it does sound somewhat contradictory.

[barca]

The point is that the question has been a matter of debate for 200+ years - a debate that hasn

Edited December 6, 2009 by barca

[barca]

I just read a recent article in the New York times.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html

 

 

The author tries to be impartail, but he misses numerous opportunities to point out that many of the ideas that are thrown around such as natural rights, the god of nature, and separation of powers come from Greco-Roman philosophy, and not the Bible.

[barca]

The same people who believe the earth is 6000 years old despite all available scientific evidence to the contrary? I rest my case.

 

I couldn't help but remember your comment when I heard about the revised history curriculum in the state of Texas. Mcleroy who is the main proponent of the new curriculum is one of those individuals you described above.

 

Ill send some relevant links as a followup. What is unfortunate is that in the arguments of the democrats and republicans, what really got lost? The greco-roman or classical influence on US history.

 

Here are the links:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/21/texas.textbook.vote/

 

http://www.aolnews.com/story/texas-board-a...-studies/673391

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...1001.blake.html

 

There may be an element of truth to Mcleroy's comment about "liberal" (whatever that means) inclinations in the previous history books, but he's certainly not an Historian himself. In my opinion, history should be about trying to get the facts right, not about promoting a political ideology, right or left.

 

From the aol article U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic." Does everyone agree with this? They do have a valid point. The founding fathers admired the stable Roman Republic much more than the Greek Democracies which tended to become free-for-alls.

Edited May 22, 2010 by barca

[Nephele]

From the aol article U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic." Does everyone agree with this? They do have a valid point. The founding fathers admired the stable Roman Republic much more than the Greek Democracies which tended to become free-for-alls.

 

I've always considered our nation (U.S.A.) to be a constitutional republic. If we were a true democracy, then we wouldn't have laws and representatives making certain that minorities in our nation had a voice, beyond that of the majority. I rather think that majority rule (as in a democracy) is oppressive to those of us who disagree with the majority.

 

In this respect, I like to think of the U.S. having much in common with ancient Rome. But I'm not certain if this was the reason why Rome was founded as a republic. After all, the plebeians didn't have much of a voice in Rome's government in the early republic.

 

-- Nephele

[Ursus]

... and if I remember my American history correctly, plebians didn't have much say in American government until the time of Andrew Jackson. There were property qualifications and such that keep the early elections confined to a fairly narrow electorate.

[Ursus]

There may be an element of truth to Mcleroy's comment about "liberal" (whatever that means) inclinations in the previous history books, but he's certainly not an Historian himself. In my opinion, history should be about trying to get the facts right, not about promoting a political ideology, right or left.

 

 

I agree completely with that, but that's never going to happen in American public school education. The locals, whether Christian conservatives or liberal secularists, are always going to indoctrinate children into their world view.