Well actually, Lee it was only justified on Biblical principles, originally in New England in which the very rich and the very poor were deliberately denied applications to the original Plymouth migration. The Middle Colonies were populated by dissenter sects especially Quakers which already had more egalitarian folkways. Both of this was in the seventeenth century. The South whose ruling classes were runaway nobles from the English Civil War deliberately constructed an inegalitarian society. And they kept that up at least until the other regions persuaded them by arguments which were tangential to both the Biblical and the enlightenment perspectives.

Thanks, Jason. And what's more, Ben, note that equality was justified in America (and in England by Wilberforce) on the basis of Biblical principles. Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King both referred to the Bible. How did secularism and the Enlightenment promote equality, distinct from the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-reformation? I'm assuming you have some examples in mind. // It's nice to see you and Benjamin collaborating, in that maybe The Point has helped forge yet another friendship. Still, know full well that I refuse to accept an "us" vs. "them" split, no matter how hard the two of you might try. ;-)

Actually Ben institutionalized inequality of the kind Lee is talking about hung on in Europe at least until a little after WWII. It melted away in America because social and economic circumstances were different. It is not clear that the Enlightenment had all that much practical effect.

LQ, somehow, despite the verses that some now use to support equality, classism and other institutionalized inequalities persisted in Western culture for well over a millenium and a half. In fact, the ideas of equality were born much more out of the Enlightenment (hand-in-hand with the ideas of secularism) than out of the Bible. In many ways, the Bible has been just a looking glass for cultures - they see themselves, and read into it support for their own ideas.

jason, I agree that it's not easy per se, but whether people acknowledge it or not, they simply have no answer back. They can choose to ignore that, as most do and say pass me a beer, or that can realize they're being idiots. It's sort of a round about way of doing evangelism. It's up to the Lord to open that person's heart that their life is based on a lie. I just poke the ground a little.

negated: =) Benjamin, I have a good friend who lived in Dubai for several years. Certainly it is an "Islamic nation", as are the other countries around it, yet my friend is not Muslim. So it is possible to characterize nations by their religious beliefs, even if not all the members of the nation agree to that belief. And, in the case of "Christian nation", the phrase never was intended to refer to religion but rather to the structure of the social and political contract. We believe that all people are equal, rather than having social classes into which one is born, because of some Bible verses. Ponder that the next time you're in line for a latte; you don't have to step aside to let someone wealthier go in front. Ponder it really hard when "A Christmas Carol" is portrayed in the theater and in various versions on TV; much of the content is almost incomprehensible to Americans because we don't experience the kind of routine discrimination Dickens decried. And ponder it most deeply as you sleep in on Sunday; you have the freedom to believe whatever you want because Christianity's founder drew people to Himself and called them rather than forcing them. Unlike Islam, you're free to disbelieve. Unlike Hinduism, your neighbors care about you because Christianity values the individual and believes you only get one shot at life. Unlike the secular states, your neighbors care what you believe because Christianity teaches that we are all in a network of relationships and therefore everyone affects everyone else. // But in a sense, you're right, and you agree with Regis: America is slowly losing its adherence to Christian principles. We risk that we become a nation where individuals are not as highly valued. We have to hold to some set of principles, and the question for you, Benjamin (as for all of us), becomes "Which ones?"

posited: "Christian nation" is very nearly an oxymoron. =)

The typical answer to that, is that dumping hot water on people's heads doesn't fulfill reciprocity. Which is all very well. Except the entire point of feuds and honor killings is reciprocity.

I wouldn't know what the appeal of Hinduism is; I never could quite "get" it. Part of it is, I suppose that it has more of an emotional stir then explicit or implicit materialism which some converts knew before. Also(to make a snarky point)the westernized variety of Hinduism doesn't demand anymore commitment then is convenient and it therefore has the same appeal that a well-trained courtesan has to a rich young man. That is hardly the appeal of it in it's native soil, nor is it the appeal to all who seek after it. It does seem to be the appeal to some. On the other hand concentrating on people's sillier motives leads to the danger of underestimation.

That's funny Mike. In my experience they have been extremely difficult to convince that holding two contradictory opinions is untenable. I remember reading a poster that actually said(in those exact words or almost),"Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you have to think them wrong."

LeeQuod and Mike--Your comments remind me of a story by F. Schaeffer. As I recall, Schaeffer was speaking about the existence of evil when a "transcendentalist" in his class objected, "There is no such thing as evil." To which, Schaeffer took a boiling kettle from the stove, held it over the man's head, and began to tip it. The startled fellow looked up at Schaeffer and asked, "What are you doing?" "I'm going to pour this hot water on your head," Scaheffer blithely responded; "There is no such thing as evil, right?" The man hurriedly got up with his mat in hand and never came back. Now that's what I call coming face-to-face with the logic of one's worldview

Some of the most hilarious moments in the lectures by Ravi Zacharias are when he describes being lectured by Westerners about Hinduism when those Westerners have only a vague intellectual grasp of it, and then enlightening them (sorry) about what it's like to be raised surrounded by it. This does remind me to add Ravi's new little book "New Birth or Rebirth? Jesus Talks with Krishna" to my reading list.

Regis, Great stuff. I have a blast talking with functional relativists, be they religious or not. It's not all that difficult to get them to realize that holding two completely contradictory thoughts simply isn't tenable. I do that by asking lots of questions and making very few assertions. Regardless of how tolerant it appears to Americans the Hinduization of America simply isn't logically sustainable. Truth is like water to the human soul. Without it long enough you will die. But when your parched lips taste it nothing ever tasted better. I've seen it over and over again, most people want to believe that there is a there there. Reality is concrete and exists, including truth. This points up the absolute importance of culture in the health of a nation. And it further points up what a tragedy it has been that that Christians and others who hold traditional values (for lack of a better term) have abdicated professions of cultural influence to secular leftists. For 50 plus years people of a conservative bent have focused on politics and public policy almost exclusively, thinking that this will determine the direction of our society. The only time culture becomes important to these people is to complain about it. Culture forms the plausibility structure of a society, i.e. those things that SEEM true, real, etc., and we’ve allowed the secular left to ingrain their worldview into America through Hollywood and entertainment, media and journalism, and of course education. It’s not enough to comment or complain about these professions, we have to get in there and do the dirty work of earning a living so a more biblically friendly worldview again permeates our society. That seems impossible now, but it isn’t. We’ve founded an organization called The Culture Alliance (http://theculturealliance.org/) to do just this, but there a no quick fixes. It’s a generational fight. Sorry for the length, but one more thing. I wanted to take issue with one thing you said. You stated that “aborting an unplanned child is a heroic, if tragic, sacrifice . . .” It’s interesting that in spite of the best attempts by feminists and their allies to make abortion a positive thing, the American public is increasingly against it. You can only deny for so long that something that has fingers and toes and a heartbeat and brainwaves isn’t human. Popular culture, like the movie Juno, is actually helping move more Americans in the pro-life direction. I read not long ago some article by a feminist who was angry that abortion is always portrayed as a tragedy in movies and TV shows, and that choosing to keep the child is always positive and heroic.