When I was a novice blogger, I spoke like a newbie, I understood like a newbie, I thought like a newbie: but when I became a Serious Blogger I put away my newbie ways. That�s why I no longer post online tests. Bloggers who want to be considered Serious Thinkers (the types who capitalize common nouns) never spread those memes. Would Andrew Sullivan bother sharing with his audience his results on the �What Simpsons Character Are You?� Of course he wouldn�t. Andy�s a Serious Blogger.* I want to be one too.
Still, I�m still a sucker for those silly online quizzes. That�s why I was excited to find a �Christian Worldview� test by Worldview Weekend. After submitting to an intrusive registration process and answering the 85 questions, I discovered what I already knew � I�m a "Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker.� (I even have a certificate to prove it.)
What did surprise me, though, is that I barely squeezed into that category. Out of a 170 points, I scored 129, edging in with a score of 75%. While I aced the family, law, religion, and social issues sections, I didn�t fare so well on the categories of education and science (apparently believing �There is no evidence for a world-wide flood� is unbiblical). And on the questions about civil government and economics I was exposed as being a �Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker.� (Although I�ve been a Christian since I was a child, I wasn�t aware that the Bible supports a flat tax.)
Jack Heller, an assistant professor of English at a Midwestern Christian college, also took the test and met with even worse results. Heller concluded that the �[test�s] makers confuse having a Christian worldview with their own ideologically biased interpretations of American history or political science.� If that were true, could a non-believer �pass the test� if he had the right political lenaings? Heller decided to put the test to the test:
I decided to find out the answer: I registered with a different email address and took the WorldviewWeekend.com test again, this time considering how I would answer as if my politics were completely conservative but as a non-Christian who views the Bible as a good book of moral instruction and Christ as a good man. (My mental model was to think about how Ben Franklin would have answered the questions.) With that persona, I tested as being a moderate biblical worldview thinker, even though I claimed that I never attend church, that I am not a born again Christian, that I deny the resurrection of Christ, that I have no opinion on the existence of the Holy Spirit, that I "tend to agree" that all religions are equally true, that there is more than one way to God, and that a person can get to heaven if his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds.
...
If a person can deny the resurrection of Christ and still appear to have a Christian worldview, if a Christian in Asia could not take a Christian worldview test and pass it, then these tests are not a valid assessment of whether a person has a Christian worldview. The tests may assess how well an American agrees with the religious right, but if that is their purpose, then it is deceptive to call them Christian worldview tests. I cannot imagine the previous generation of thinkers about worldview--people such as Carl Henry, James Sire, Arthur Holmes, Francis Schaeffer--approving of these tests. As the tests idolize politics, what is cause for concern is how many significant evangelical leaders, people who really should know better, are associated with them.
Indeed, the makers of the test appear to confuse having a �moderate biblical worldview� with having a �moderate Republican worldview.�
So what exactly is a worldview? As James Sire defines the term in �Naming the Elephant�:
A worldview is a commitment,a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consiously or subconsiously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.
Sire argues that the basics of a worldview are found in the answer to seven questions:
1. What is prime reality � the really real?
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
3. What is a human being?
4. What happens to a person at death?
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
7. What is the meaning of human history?
My answers to this set of questions is the same Sire present�s in his classic �The Universe Next Door�:
1. God is infinite and personal (Triune), transscendent and immanent, omniscent, sovereign, and good.
2. God created the universe ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of natural causes in an open system.
3. Human beings are created in the image of God and thus posses personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness, and creativity.
4. For each person death is either the gate to life with God and his people or the gate to eternal seperation from the only thing that will ultimately fulfill human aspirations.
5. Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with them.
6. Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving).
7. History is linear, a meaningful sequence of events leading to the fulfillment of God�s purposes for humanity.
These answers, of course, only provide the foundation for which the worldview is based. While they are not exhaustive, they do provide the necessary scaffolding upon which a Biblically Christian worldview can be built. They are also more accurate and thourough than asking if a person believes �George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America� or whether the �American founding fathers violated New Testament principles when they founded America.� After all, a Christian worldview should be based on the Bible, not on the politics of Jerry Falwell.
*For what it's worth, I'm guessing Sully would be Mr. Smithers.
1
Joe, the first time I respond to you. Thanks for your blog. At Fuller Sem, School of World Mission with Chuck Kraft, missionary anthropology, I learned that worldview is pretty much a synonym of systematic theology, ideology, philosophy of life, belief system.
Check it out: there are only a 1/2 basic worldviews: monism, animism, dualism, idealism, atheistic materialism/naturalism, deism, (mono)theism. What else? Obviously, there are variations of any and/or all of these 1/2 dozen.
Kraft worked with 4 concentric circles: worldview at the center, 2nd ring: moral philosophy or ethics, 3rd ring: customs, habits, traditions, 4th ring: institutions or organized customs.
This is simple enough and yet profound enough for us to keep busy a very long time in seminary and university classes, trying to understand how beliefs are foundational to ethics, and ethics determine our customs, etc. and finally, our institutions.
In summary, what James Sire has said about it, quite coincides with Kraft's concept of ontology, theology, epistemology, anthropology, hamartiology, soteriology and eschatology. Thanks for your part to help us all toward Biblical worldview thinking.
2
Joe - I took the test and got a 168 out of 170. I had no opinion on testing High School graduates which got me a zero for that question.Is there hope for me?
posted on 08.12.2004 8:25 AM3
I'm a "Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker," mostly because I answered "No Opinion" on a few, which it docks you for. Sorry, but I don't think a flat tax or cloning are in my verson of the Bible.
It's put on by the AFA, which explains the invisible line between the USA and the Bible.
posted on 08.12.2004 8:44 AM4
I got a 154, but got docked several times for being in a hurry to answer the question. My actual score should have been about a 170.
Some of it is pretty picky. They subtracted a point for my responding to the Flat Tax question as "tend to agree" versus "strongly agree".
I suspect that John Kerry and other similarly conflicted and "nuanced" individuals would likely score pretty poorly. Which probably wouldn't bother Kerry, or the ones who wrote the test.
posted on 08.12.2004 8:56 AM5
"The Bible states that the government does not bear the sword in vain. Numerous verses throughout the Bible make it clear that capital punishment administered by the government, for those that have committed capital crimes, is biblically acceptable."
Got docked on this question too, when I said "tend to agree", when the correct answer was "strongly agree". But it is the government that decides what a "capital crime" is--doesn't make capital punishment OK in those circumstances. Under the Sharia, being a Christian is a capital offense--I'm quite certain that the worldview theorists weren't thinking about that.
posted on 08.12.2004 8:59 AM7
I took the test a month ago and had a different reaction. One question said whether every human being other than Jesus has sinned. According to this test, Martin Luther, Augustine, Aquinas, all Catholics, all Orthodox, and most of the Church Fathers don't have a Christian worldview on this issue.
This is just one more instance that leads me to conclude that the authors of this test are not sufficiently reflective concerning what is a Christian worldview v. what is a Republican worldview v. what is an American non-denominational Christian worldview.
But to respond more directly to the original post and some of the comments, there is nothing illogical about a non-Christian having a Christian worldview in some, many, or perhaps even most regards. Look at the way early Christians marveled at Socrates. Or the way Dante followed Virgil.
There are some things that Christians only know through special revelation. But there is so much knowledge that does not fall in this category (See, e.g., J. Budziszewski, _What We Can't Not Know: A Guide_). We should not scoff at the idea that a non-Christian could have, in many regards, a Christian worldview. Because in a wide number of issues, that merely means that the non-Christian accurately perceives the world around him, that his worldview properly corresponds with the world he lives in--the world the Christian God created, whether he knows it or not.
posted on 08.12.2004 9:03 AM8
Somehow, I only got 13 points. I want to know which 13 questions I answered wrongly.
The thing is certainly deeply confused. Aside from the idiosyncratic interpretations of purely political or historical issues, its understanding of what a "worldview" is seems rather strange. The possible evaluative categories are: Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker, Moderate Biblical Worldview Thinker, Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker, Socialist Worldview Thinker or Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker. By their lights, the opposite of "Strong Biblical Worldview" is "Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker"; apparently the scale ranks economic systems, not religious systems. The midpoint on the scale is "Secular Humanist" - which I would have thought would be the opposite of "Biblical Worldview" but which the testmakers regard as the halfway point between "Biblical Worldview" and "Marxism." (Note also that you score on the "Marxism" scale by getting a negative total score on the test. I don't know what that means.)
Like many such ideological purity tests, it also assumes you are answering the questions from its point of view (that is, that the only reason you would agree with certain of their opinions is because you have the same "worldview" they do). Thus, someone with clearly non-Christian beliefs may still answer some questions "right" (e.g., that moral absolutes exist, or that the Bible does or does not say certain things) without having anything like the beliefs the test writers assume must underlie that position.
Silly nonsense.
posted on 08.12.2004 9:19 AM9
I took that a long time ago, and at that time, the test had definite problems,from a perspective shaped by L'Abri and Covenant Theological Seminary.
I'll have to see what I get now.
posted on 08.12.2004 9:24 AM10
"Somehow, I only got 13 points. I want to know which 13 questions I answered wrongly."
You didn't answer them wrong, KTK, you answered them right. Just like Stalin would have.
posted on 08.12.2004 9:27 AM11
Yeah, the test is somewhat improved, but still not very good.
Most of the questions had to do with politics and economics. The Bible does address those, but the lack of questions on the philosphical level isn't a good thing.
No distinction is made between reproductive cloning (having twins or triplets) and research cloning which results in human vivisection.
They seem to not realize that anarchy is even more chaotic than a pure democracy.
They seem to not know about the laws in Moses and the commands in the prophets against stinginess and oppressive economic conditions.
They misrecall Scripture where it is written that if a man -will not- work, he shall not eat- into 'if he can't find work, he shall not eat-, a very different proposition, and one that is thorougly unBiblical.
There are some trick questions, when if the question was State or local government, it would be true, and federal, false. And that has more to do with knowing the Constitution and the Federalist papers, than the Bible, though subsidiarity is to be found as a principle.
posted on 08.12.2004 9:45 AM12
And of course, I'm sure you all noticed the leading questions, and the poorly-worded questions. In some cases it was a matter of: "I think maybe you really meant 'this' and not what you actually wrote".
Sigh.
I don't think anyone working at L'Abri would dare make such a test, but if they did, it would surely be more useful.
I'd like to see J.Bud. write one, too. I heard him a year or so ago at the local branch of L'Abri. Brilliant man!
posted on 08.12.2004 9:49 AM13
Hey at least you guys didn't get a goose egg. I don't know jack about being a Christian, but if the term Christian Worldview is taken literally, wouldn't it imply something along the lines of:
1. Accepting Christ as your personal savior,i.e. the conduit to Heaven
2. Taking to heart and practicing the Gospels of Christ.
14
140 points of 170 possible, 82% ... and this from a clergyman of the so-called "liberal" Presbyterian denomination.
posted on 08.12.2004 10:23 AM15
As a freethinking, secular humanist I took the test for grins. I figured I'd end up squarely in the secular humanist catagory. As I took the test, I found many of the questions either irrelevant to my worldview or framed in false choices, so I had a good deal of "no opinion" answers.
Apparently, not having an opinion (or refusing to answer the question on the given terms) is worse than having the wrong answer, since they appear to always score -2.
My final tally: -46, or -27%. Whatever that means. To the authors of the test, it means I'm a Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker. Anyways, it was good for a laugh.
posted on 08.12.2004 10:49 AM16
To ~DS~,
One *could* take the term "Christian worldview" to be what you say, agreeing with the Bible about who Christ is, having a "personal relationship" (as opposed to, what, an impersonal relationship?) with Christ, etc.
But this term can also be used in a more general sense. This is what I meant by saying that Socrates and Virgil have been lauded by Christians because, though they themselves were not Christians, their worldviews resonated with Christianity in important ways.
posted on 08.12.2004 10:56 AM17
Well, it is interesting that God biblically required a tenth of everyone's income, rather than requiring the rich to pay 50% and the poor to pay nothing.
Of course, one could argue that the biblical tithe is not the same as civil taxation (although in theocratic Israel, this distinction would have been meaningless), but there does seem to be an equity principle there that's missing from our current tax code.
It seems to me that any argument against a flat tax is also implicitly an argument against God's wisdom in instituting the tithe in Israel.
posted on 08.12.2004 11:10 AM18
You seem to be aware that these philosopy/theology lite catechisms are frivolous but then critique them as if they merit serious inquiry. The object of your critique slides between 'Biblical Worldview', 'Christian Worldview', and 'Christian Ontology' as if they were all three different words for one concept.
I agree that it is a mistake to baptize a specific political/economic theory. There are guidelines for how we should act (which can be applied to our roles as citizens), however I find no specific guidelines for government administration (Israel excluded).
I would suggest that YEC is indeed supported by consistent hermeneutics. Apparently you disagree. I would be interested to read your biblical critique of YEC.
posted on 08.12.2004 11:42 AM19
bevets,
I would suggest that YEC is indeed supported by consistent hermeneutics. Apparently you disagree. I would be interested to read your biblical critique of YEC.
For some time now I’ve been intending to provide such a critique. I'll try to have something on that this week.
posted on 08.12.2004 12:06 PM20
By the way, I'd be interested in hearing how the non-Christians would answer Sire's seven worldview questions. Any takers?
posted on 08.12.2004 12:08 PM21
I am the most conservative of conservative Christians. I am also a strong conservative and activist Republican (A republican presidential elector in 1996). But I scored 75% because I don't believe in the flat tax with the same fervency that I believe that Jesus died for my sins. I'll disobey the law and die for one belief, but not for the other.
In "The Screwtape Letters", CS Lewis described the temptations of those who mistake Christian politics with Christianity. Satan tempts them to believe so strongly in politics that they are willing to violate their original Christianity.
This is the thinking that caused a high divorce rate in the 1994 freshmen congressional class. They did "The Lord's Work" and destroyed their marriages.
posted on 08.12.2004 12:23 PM22
I also took the test. 110 out of 170 overall (64%) -- Moderate Biblical Worldview. It labeled my views on education, economics, civil government MODERATE, and labeled my views on law SECULAR...yet I aced the family, social issues, and religion sections.
Indeed, the worst scores are reserved for questions where "no opinion" is indicated (minus 2), even worse than the "wrong" answer, which is fairly absurd...
On the law section, the creators of the quiz seem to think the only appropriate Christian worldview is that the state should do at least some of God's "dirty work" and that Christians deserve a "right to their fair share" in matters of the state. I can't imagine that persecuted Christians in any number of places (China, Sudan, the Middle East), who are a living sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel daily, would do very well in light of the priorities represented by the quiz's correct answers. In my humble opinion, Christians worldwide stand in stark contrast to approval-obsessed American Christians.
posted on 08.12.2004 1:01 PM23
John R.
I think that tithing is giving one's money back to God. I don't think that our contributions to the IRS can be used as a credit against our obligations to Him. I think that one could make equally compelling and reasonable arguments that our current tax structure is equitable. Either way, support of a flat tax doesn't seem to me to be a necessary component of a Christian world view.
24
I kind of miss Lord Larry. Where is he and why doesn't he have an opinion on this?
-jdm
25
"I kind of miss Lord Larry. Where is he and why doesn't he have an opinion on this?"
I'm guessing it would have been along the lines of
"and why would I care what anyone else's view is when Bush...kill...#$%&(!@....Iraq........"
26
Wow, Joe, that's kind of scary. I scored a 129 too.
Maybe we should get together for coffee. Sounds like we'd have a lot in common. I was good in most areas, but Marxist on economic. And this after graduating from a conservative Christian college (although, some will tell you Wheaton went to hell when they let the students start dancing...or was it playing cards?) ;-)
27
KTK:
You scored a 13? I scored -1! :) Of course, the test is horribly phrased, and I took some representative examples of what I mean:
A God given responsibility of government is to protect the righteous and punish the wicked.Problem here is that I agree that it's a responsibility of government, I just don't concur that it's a God-given responsibility. So how to answer this one?
Legislating morality is a violation of the separation of church and state.My answer here is "it depends." At the risk of rekindling the beaten-to-death "what is morality?" debate, it depends if the "morality" being legislated is solely driven by a particular religion. If the Bible claims behavior X is immoral, but the majority of the people don't believe that X is immoral, then legislating against X would indeed be a violation. If the people agree, then what the Bible says is irrelevant, and it's A-OK to legislate against it. (Provided, of course, that X is not a constitutionally protected right.) In our system of government, the power derives from the people, so what they (collectively) say generally goes (excepting the aforementioned constitutional caveat).
Science, history, literature and other advanced educational skills and facts can be taught without a religious or philosophical foundation.Several problems here. Without a philosophical foundation? Probably not. Without a religious foundation? It depends. Science could fairly easily be taught without a religious foundation, but history and literature would be virtually impossible to teach without it, since religion inspired so much of those two disciplines. (Without religion, there would have been no such thing as the crusades, and no such thing as "Paradise Lost").
The separation of church and state must be enforced, prohibiting the acknowledgment of God in the public schools, governmental buildings, meetings & property.Again, a poorly-worded and loaded question. Yes, the separation of church and state must be enforced, but that does not always prohibit the acknowledgment of God in those places. It merely prohibits the acknowledgment of God by the state and its agents in those places. Any individual student who wants to pray in a public school, for example, is perfectly free to do so. It's only whent they start trying to compel others to join them, or when teachers (themselves agents of the state) try to "encourage" it that there's a problem.
There are of course some gray areas here, such as when a student speaker wishes to acknowledge God. Here, I deviate from some of the most adamant separationists, and say that if the speaker wishes to personally acknowledge God in his or her speech, and it's clear that the school isn't advocating that view, it's okay. If the student wishes to lead the assembly in a prayer, however, he or she has crossed the line.
The federal government should pass legislation allowing doctors and family members to decide when a loved one should be put to death based on the individual's quality of life.Again, a loaded question here. The wishes of the loved one are not taken into consideration here, so I'm forced to "tend to agree" rather than "strongly agree." If the ill person has made his or her wishes clear, then the family ought to have the authority to carry out those wishes. I would even suggest that the family should have only a very limited ability to override those wishes.
Other questions I answered with an implicit "Assuming God exists" in front of them. While I don't believe in God, I am fairly knowledgable (for a layperson) about the scripture and was in fact raised Catholic, so I felt qualified to answer many of those questions.
My biggest overall objection to the quiz, however, is the idea that there even are "correct" and "incorrect" answers to these questions. Anyway, here are my broken-down results:
- Civil Government: 12% (Socialist)
- Economics: 16% (Socialist)
- Education: 25% (Secular Humanist)
- Family: 12% (Socialist)
- Law: 7% (Socialist)
- Religion: -18% (Commie/Marxist/Socialist/Humanist/Antichrist)
- Science: -43% (Pinko/Commie/Rat Bastard)
- Social Issues: 37% (Secular Humanist)
28
Bevets, that is one of the reasons why Joe is not an evangelical, but neo-orthodox, and why this blog is mis-named.
I got 100% in everything except civil government and economics, because I've read the OT and know that Adam Smith is not Moses (neither is Karl Marx).
Dave S. If I were to speculate their favoring a flat tax, it would be because the Bible insists that we treat the rich and the poor alike, not discriminating or denying justice to -either- group.
Josh, it was when Wheaton started hiring profs who weren't evangelicals, some 20 years or more before they allowed dancing, which the Bible doesn't forbid. One of my pet peeves is that so many churches forbid what God allows and allow what God forbids.
posted on 08.12.2004 4:24 PM29
tgirsch, Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution. There were still official State churches as late as 1838. Jefferson's famous letter, which of course has not the force of law (not to mention he was in France, not Philadelphia, during the Constitutional Convention) was to assure the Danbury Baptists that the Federal government would not establish the Anglican or Congregational Churches over all of the States, that the Federal government would leave the Baptists alone. America was intentionally founded upon Christian political principles, and was expressly intended to be a Christian nation that did not have the power to change State denominational affiliations or persecute Jews.
The old Soviet Constitution -did- have a separation of church and state clause.
posted on 08.12.2004 4:28 PM30
Puzzled,
Bevets, that is one of the reasons why Joe is not an evangelical, but neo-orthodox, and why this blog is mis-named.
You think I'm not an evangelical because I'm not a YEC'er? I guess by your defintion Francis Schaeffer isn't an evangelical either, is he?
posted on 08.12.2004 4:29 PM31
I scored 85% but lied in order to be allowed to take the test- where does that leave me? More over on my blog re this....
posted on 08.12.2004 4:45 PM32
Puzzled:
Separation of church and state is not explicitly listed in the constitution, but clearly the intent was there. Jefferson's letter by itself has no force of law, but has been used in part to justify reams of judicial precedent stating that government neutrality on religion ought to be the official policy under the constitution, and that official "nods" toward this religion or that amount to establishment of religion in practice if not in the letter of the law, and are therefore forbidden.
As for your statement that America was "intentionally founded upon Christian political principles, and was expressly intended to be a Christian nation," that's patently false. The federal government was intended to be a secular government, because the framers had seen the church and state misuse one another. This is why there is no mention of God, Christ, or Jesus in our Constitution (with the notable exception of "Year of Our Lord," a common date notation at the time). The nation was founded not on Christian principles, but on enlightenment principles.
What you say about state churches is largely true, because the idea that the federal constitution actually ought to apply to the states didn't come about until later. What's telling is that most states wound up building more stringent church/state restrictions into their constitutions than exist in the federal constitution.
A lot of people seem to forget this, but the separation of church and state benefits the church at least as much as the state. It keeps the government out of church business, but requires that the church return the favor.
Among Western, industrialized nations, America is one of the most devout, and I argue that this is precisely because of the separation of church and state, not in spite of it.
posted on 08.12.2004 5:13 PM33
Dave S.,
I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the flat tax is neccessary to a Christian worldview. Not yet, at least. And of course our taxes are not the same as the tithe.
Still, the fact is that when God decided to levy a payment, He did so on a "flat-tax" basis. Don't we have to deal with that in our discussion? Why didn't God have the poor people give less and the rich people give more? If adjusting the rate according to wealth is intrinsicly more fair and just, then God perpetrated an injustice (which none of us believes). But if the standardized percentage is fair and just (which it is, since it was imposed by God), then why do we claim a flat tax rate is unfair or unjust for the poor? Or that our sliding scales are more just?
God saw fit to have everyone pay the same percentage, whether rich or poor, and He's the standard of all righteousness. It's only we enlightened humans who think we can improve on God's justice by monkeying with the margins.
posted on 08.12.2004 5:14 PM34
Puzzled:
The old Soviet Constitution -did- have a separation of church and state clause.And Iran doesn't have one. What's your point? (For the record -- did the Soviet Union even have a "constitution?") posted on 08.12.2004 5:17 PM
35
Brian Walsh is a writer on Christian worldview, and while I find him quirky and disagree with him fairly often, the worldview test reminded me of one of his better articles on worldview, available here: http://crc.sa.utoronto.ca/articles/Transformation.html
From the article:
"Some years ago a graduate student wrote to me about a doctoral dissertation that he was writing on the effectiveness of Christian colleges in inculcating a Christian worldview in their students. He had set up a survey that he was sending out to alumni of one Christian college as part of his research and, since he was, at least in his own mind, so indebted to the influence of The Transforming Vision in his work he asked me if I would comment on the survey he had designed. Now apart from the fact that the survey asked questions that, given the context, had clearly right and wrong answers (like, “Do you think it important to pray for your colleagues at work?” - what Christian college grad would want to say no to that?), thereby rendering the results useless from a social scientific perspective, there was another glaring problem with his work. All he was doing by means of this survey was measuring what these people thought about the world, not how they actually lived. This student felt that if he could ascertain the basic furniture of their intellectual framework then he would be able to discern the effectiveness of their Christian college education."
36
tgirsch,
Q. Where was Thomas Jefferson when the Bill of Rights was written?
A. Thousands of miles away, in France. He was serving there as the American ambassador. How a letter written by a guy who had nothing to do with the First Amendment has become the standard of judgement is a mystery to me.
When the Bill of Rights were approved, several of the 13 states had official state churches. States with official state churches ratified the First Amendment, while continuing on with their state churches. The state church in Massachussetts continued for nearly 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution.
The First Amendment did not mean there shall be no religious influence in government. It meant what it said: the federal government was to stay out of the issue of religion entirely("Congress shall make no law..."), leaving it to the states to decide for themselves.
The fact that activist courts have subsequently used the Constitution as toilet paper doesn't change what its framers intended it to mean.
Also, morality is the only thing we can legislate. It's simply a matter of whose morality will be legislated. If you ban gay marriage, you've legislated one morality. If you give it state sanction, you've legislated another.
posted on 08.12.2004 5:24 PM37
John R.:
I'm afraid it doesn't have anything to do with "activist judges" and a lot to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. And in any case, I conceded the state churches and already adressed the point: most states ultimately followed suit and banned official religions in their constitutions long before the fourteenth was passed.
And who cares where Jefferson was? Can we agree that James Madison was there for the ratification? He's the one who said ""The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE." (emphasis added). The sentiment was common among the founding fathers.
And what they thought then is only of relative importance, because what's happened since then matters.
posted on 08.12.2004 8:19 PM38
I'm taking this test now. I just got to the question "George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America." What is this, a christian worldview test or a "reality perception test?"
posted on 08.12.2004 10:19 PM39
I scored a 64% and thus am a moderate because
-I believe the people have the right to actually **gasp** disobey the laws of the state when they intrude of liberties, not God's law
-Believe that America's culture will die just as rapidly from religious right denigration of its pagan greco-roman cultural and political legacy as it will from the MTV-inspired rot
-I agreed with the statement that America was founded in contradiction to New Testament principles per Romans 13:1-7.
posted on 08.12.2004 11:09 PM40
tgirsch,
Do you honestly think that our founders would be happy with school kids being banned from reading religious texts on government grounds? How about wearing religious symbols?
How does it hurt you to have these benign displays of religion in public by private citizens? By supporting pure separation of church and state, you are putting yourself in that camp because the natural end of a **total** separation of church and state is the banning of any religious presence on public property.
posted on 08.12.2004 11:13 PM41
Alas, when it comes to the flat tax, it appears that the Bible itself doesn't have a "Christian World View." According to Leviticus 11:8, if a new mother "cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons." I'm no expert in the cost of livestock long ago, but I suspect that represents perhaps a twenty-fold reduction in taxes. Read Luke 2:24 and you'll discover that Mary paid this reduced tax after the birth of Jesus. It's also easy to suspect that for the really poor, a kindly priest would provide the sacrifice himself. Jesus certainly did that for a tax his disciples were required to pay.
Also, when I hear "flat tax," the expression "lackey for the callous rich" comes readily to mind. Imagine for instance, a woman with five kids who's widowed when her husband is killed in a car accident with a drunk without auto insurance. Forced to work as a waitress, she's barely getting by even under our present tax laws, where she's likely to receive rather than pay taxes. Now explain precisely what percentage the flat tax for her and Bill Gates ought to be. Remember, they both have to pay the same rate.
Or, for that matter, why should this flat tax be a percentage of one's income? If taxes ought to be equal by some divine fiat from a rather muddled headed God (clearly not the God of Leviticus or Luke), then the actual amount should be equal. If Gates is going to be accessed $10,000, then so should this unfortunate mom.
And why should kids bring deductions? Flatness suggest that a family of five should pay five times what a bachelor like myself pays. After all, there are five of them requiring government services.
Something like this is helpful. It reminds us that sheer nuttiness runs across the political spectrum. It isn't confined to Deaniacs.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
posted on 08.13.2004 2:26 AM42
Mike Perry,
That's why income taxes are inherently immoral. They either declare some to be "more equal than others" or they are harsher than any other tax on the poor. That's why most libertarians support a purely excise tax system.
posted on 08.13.2004 11:51 AM43
tgirsh,
Wrong again. Even if the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the individual states, it does not change what the Bill of Rights was supposed to mean. It is activist judges, and activist judges only, who in the 20th century decided that an amendment stating that the government "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof" actually meant that the government shall make all kinds of laws restricting religious expression.
"And what they thought then is only of relative importance, because what's happened since then matters."Why don't you just go all the way and say it: the text of the Constitution doesn't matter. It's simply a wax nose we use to impose our particular agenda today--whatever that might be.
James Madison wrote lots of contradictory things about religion. Your quote comes from the late period of his life, when he wrote his "Detached Memoranda." But the question is: what did the First Amendment mean when it was drafted and ratified by the states?
Whatever Madison's end-of-life beliefs, the fact remains that a half-dozen or so states ratified it while retaining their state churches. As President, he approved federal funding to distribute Bibles, issued proclaimations of National Days of Public Humiliation and Prayer, and while serving in the Virginia assembly, he wrote:
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent both in order of time, and degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.And, of course, George Washington, the unanimously-elected president of the Constitutional Convention wrote:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.Though Madison modified his views late in his life, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, nobody intended it to radically separate religion and government. They simply intended to prohibit a national church, just as the text says. posted on 08.13.2004 12:58 PM
44
Mike writes
"Do you honestly think that our founders would be happy with school kids being banned from reading religious texts on government grounds? How about wearing religious symbols?"
I think if our founders were aware of what was going to happen to the world and to the US in particular, they would have been much more strident in their attempts to secularize the country and prevent government and religion from mingling.
As to those specific examples, they are imaginary. Kids can read religious texts in public schools and they can wear religious symbols. What's your point?
"How does it hurt you to have these benign displays of religion in public by private citizens?"
Why don't you put a ten foot tall upside down cross in a huge clear tank of yellow liquid on the front steps of your city hall. That's the symbol of my religion. When the Christians come complaining, ask them what they are so uptight about. It's just a ten foot tall upside down cross in a huge clear tank of yellow liquid. You could even use lemonade. Thirst-quenching. Good for what ails you.
"By supporting pure separation of church and state, you are putting yourself in that camp because the natural end of a **total** separation of church and state is the banning of any religious presence on public property."
If you say so. I'm not sure why that would be so bad either, but there is another clause in the First Amendment that is probably worth considering at some point.
posted on 08.13.2004 1:48 PM45
Larry -
1. You mean a ten foot upside down cross subsidized by tax money (i.e., endorsed by the government, or so say the Supremes) through the NEA? I'm sure you have no problem with government endorsement of anti-religious speech.
2. Do some reading - there are any number of decisions in which courts banned the type of conduct cited by Mike. In one (ultimately overturned by the 11th Circuit) the district judge appointed monitors to report any religious conduct in school.
3. Your supposition about the Fathers' "stridency" is based on what - the way religion permeates every aspect of American life today, in stark contrast to those secularist 1790s?
posted on 08.13.2004 9:10 PM46
So, the question "George W. Bush is the President of the United States of America." is scored in the 'family' section?!? There was truly a bent personality behind that.
posted on 08.14.2004 12:22 AM47
"I'm sure you have no problem with government endorsement of anti-religious speech."
It's hardly endorsement to give money to artusts who are free to do whatever they want with it. I kind doubt that Serrano still gets NEA funding (just fyi)
2. Do some reading - there are any number of decisions in which courts banned the type of conduct cited by Mike. In one (ultimately overturned by the 11th Circuit) the district judge appointed monitors to report any religious conduct in school.
Please. First, if that's your response, then what are you complaining about? You should be celebrating because a court decided (ultimatley overturned) that judges can put giant granite monuments of Old Testament laws in their courthouses.
Second, let's see ONE upheld case where a kid was prevented from reading a religious book in school. Just one.
Finally, my supposition regarding the Fathers is that they would be sickened by the thought of fundamentalists in the highest seats of government who do things like cover up breasts on goddamn statues and declare war because God told them to bring "freedom" to other countries.
posted on 08.17.2004 9:02 PM48
George Barna of Barna Research fame has written a book based on the results of all the surveys he has taken of people who claim to beleive in God. I am in the process of reading "Think like Jesus" by Mr. Barna, in which he lists the questions he thinks defines the Christian or Biblical worldview. They are 1. Does God exist? 2. What is the character and nature of God? 3. How and why was the world created? 4. What is the nature and purpose of humanity? 5. What happens after we die on earth? 6. What spiritual authorities exist? and 7. What is truth? He builds a pretty good case for the effectiveness of these questions for developing a Christian worldview or why the wrong answer to these questions leads to wrong decisions made in life. The shocking results he receives from asking these questions leads to the fact that only one out of every 10 people who claim to believe in God hold a Christian worldview and 2 out of every 10 people who claim to be saved or born again hold that view. It's a good read for those who are interested. George Barna has been around a long time. Check out the results of his surveys at barna.org
posted on 08.18.2004 8:39 AM49
For some peculiar reason, the new Internet filter at my institution identified this website as porn. That aside, I am grateful for the comments on my essay.
posted on 08.19.2004 7:54 PM50
Joe,
You have listed and linked on your blogsite, one La Shawn Barber. Is she your buddy because she shares your Worldview ? Let us know how close she would score to you on the Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker test.
posted on 08.20.2004 7:40 PM51
How did I get dragged into this? I hate being talked about behind my back. Asshat, maybe you should read a post I wrote a few months back. Did you know that it is not unbiblical or un-Christian to engage in warfare? Doesn't sound like it.
I've had to recommend that post several times last month, so I decided to re-run it in July, especially after Meryl Streep got confused about who Jesus is. Here's the link to "Onward, Christian Soldiers."
posted on 08.22.2004 6:45 AM52
How did I get dragged into this? I hate being talked about behind my back. Asshat, maybe you should read a post I wrote a few months back. Did you know that it is not unbiblical or un-Christian to engage in warfare? Doesn't sound like it.
I've had to recommend that post several times last month, so I decided to re-run it in July, especially after Meryl Streep got confused about who Jesus is. Here's the link to "Onward, Christian Soldiers."
posted on 08.22.2004 6:46 AM53
I obtained a copy of the “Evaluation of the Validity and Reliability of the PEERS Test” from the Nehemiah Institute. Brian D. Roy, Ph.D., carried out the evaluation in August of 1995. Validity of an instrument or measure deals with the degree to which a test measures what it purports to measure, while the reliability refers to how consistently an instrument measures what it purports to measure. So from reading a few of the posts to this blog or whatever you call it, it seems that you might like to know what they (the team of experts under the direction of Roy) found about the PEERS validity.
The panel of experts “agreed that the majority of the items were valid. The general agreement among the experts supports the validity of the test.” But wait…there is a catch! The publisher, not the experts, provides the operational definition(s) to be used. And here is essentially how the publishers (the Nehemiah Institute) operationalize the definition of a biblical Christian worldview: They believe that the definition of political conservatism represents a biblical Christian worldview.
The experts were then supposed to look the test and “decide whether each of the 70 items on the test would identify the strength of a person’s liberalism or conservatism. That is would a person’s response to a given item indicate whether the person favors a liberal or conservative worldview.”
Thus, by being asked, “Is the test valid?” the experts are really being asked, “Does the test represent an [American] politically conservative view on life?”
posted on 09.03.2004 4:34 PM54
The PEERS test, by the way, is the most commonly used worldview test. It is VERY similar to the test avaibale at "Worldview Weekend" and was probably the model for the latter test. The PEERS test can be found at http://www.nehemiahinstitute.com/peers.php.
posted on 09.08.2004 10:43 AM