In answer to your question, depending on how you define a "good American," I would say yes.  Many of your conclusions about Christian beliefs are not derived from the Bible at all, thus I think you have constructed a straw man argument.  Maybe if you gave specific references that trouble you a better response could be proffered...

I would agree that a Christian's first "allegiance" is to Yahweh, but also keep in mind that Christians are instructed to submit themselves to the governing authorities.  Check out Romans 13:1-5.  After reading that tell me if you think it presents a loyalty problem.

"It seems likely that language such as Romans 13 would have been inserted into the Bible by the Roman authorities in the first century as a means to legitimate their own authority rather than by a just God."

lol, so now the Romans need to be thrown into the conspiratorial bag of those penning the documents.  I find the whole 'it seems likely' line of argument, in the mouths of skeptics, to basically mean 'I can say any absurd thing I like and it is more likely to be true than whatever a Christian might say."  This particular instance is completely at odds with both liberal and conservative scholarship.  However, it is right at home with the X-Files brand of thinking.

"This mean that, among other governments, the governments of Adolf Hitler, a Christian gone bad, and Josef Stalin, an atheist, were instituted by God. But why would God institute governments that murder millions of innocent people?"

This, on the other hand, is a fair point and a legitimate challenge, and certainly one that Christians themselves struggle with.  I don't have time to go into it right now, but let me submit three separate 'readings' that might help flesh out this notion in a more concrete way.

First, Corrie Ten Boom's "The Hiding Place."  The Ten Boom family were Christians during WW2 who deliberately lied, cheated, and stole from the German authorities to save dozens if not hundreds of Jews.  How does a very homely and innocent Christian girl come to use such techiques in light of Romans 13?  She ends up the sole survivor from her family.  They were all caught and thrown into a concentration camp.  I strongly suggest this work.

Secondly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  I could submit a number of works here, so I leave it to yoru research to find the right ones (I don't have time this second to give you the list).  Though possessing strongly pacifistic tendencies- or at least, swimming in a circle of such tendencies- he eventually chose not to go to America when he could and instead sought to face the crisis in Germany alongside fellow Christians.  Eventually, he helped in the plot to assasinate Hitler, and when that failed, he was among those rounded up and sent to a concentration camp (others, of course, were executed immediately).  He was executed by special order only a few weeks (or days, I don't recall) before his camp was liberated.  Apparently, Hitler really didn't want to risk his freedom.  I strongly suggest his relevant works.

Thirdly, Richard Wurmbrand:  in particular "Tortured for Christ."  Wurmbrand was a Christian in Romania while it was occupied by the Communists.  He became a pastor, and along with many others, was repeatedly arrested for his activities (not all insurrectionist... many simply pastoral duties we take for granted today) and tortured.  The goal of the tortures were to try to get the Christians to renounce Christianity.  Wurmbrand would eventually be 'ransomed' by friends in the West, and testified in Congress.  You may recall that there was a time when people really couldn't believe that the Communists were doing naughty things- how could they? people are by nature good, right?- and he showed otherwise by stripping to the waist, during the hearing, and identifying how he received each of his many scars.  He was about to take his pants off and show the rest when the Congressional members said that they believed him for God's sake.  Henceforth, his organization, "Voice of the Martyrs" has been active in trying to expose human rights violations around the world as they relate to Christians, and the organization (he is dead now) does its best to get Bibles and other such things into hostile environments- in defiance of Romans 13, eh?  I strongly suggest the work I mentioned and whatever else you can glean.

I submit to you that you cannot hope to possibly speak to this question unless you have interacted with these materials, and preferably done just a tad bit more research on how these folks could justifiably 'set aside' Romans 13, even from the Scriptures.

It seems likely...

So your first point has been satisfactorily addressed then?  The loyalty issue is out of the way?

Loyalty to a government is one thing but what about the social, political and domestic ramifications. A country that prides itself as the great meltingpot of all cultures should be open minded and receptive to a multitude of ideologies. Christianity specifically forbids that.

Christianity is the most open-minded worldview that I can think of.  What makes you think it isn't?  Because it isn't receptive to a "multitude of ideologies"?  Well, for one thing, I wouldn't want to be receptive to ideologies that are not true.  Would you?  So I would tweak your statement to say that we should be receptive to ideologies that have merit and truthfulness to them.  Secondly, some ideologies are mutually exclusive, so if you embrace one, you will necessarily be rejecting others.  For instance, I won't accuse you of being close-minded becaue you reject theism.  You are an athiest, and by definition, you reject all ideologies that posit a god.  It would be silly and logically inconsistent for you to embrace both theism and athiesm.
 

Socially, no, because a Christians allegiance forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Jews.

I think this is inaccurate.  Have any backup for it?

Christianity holds people of other religions in extremely low regard, and the bible goes so far as to advocate violence and death towards non-Christians. See Deuteronomy 13:6-18, also see 2 Chronicles 15:13, also see Mark 16:16

Your Old Testament verses are written in the context of a theocracy.  Israel was a nation ruled by Yahweh.  He set the rules and made the decisions.  Note that your examples are in reference to Israelites, not other peoples.  Yes, God expected His chosen people to be pure--no unbelievers amidst them.  But this is far different than advocating a jihad against another culture or religion.  These commands were about internal affairs.  Remember Romans 13 here again too. The Mark passage is not in reference to war or violence, but to a person's eternal destination.  Christians aren't commanded to condemn people here on earth.

Politically, no, because a Christian must submit to his spiritual leaders, who teach annihilation of all who do not share their faith. See previous point.

I don't know of any scripture reference which would support your point here.

Domestically, no, because Christians are encouraged to take slaves and beat them if they are disobedient. Slavery is an example of conflict between Yahweh's laws and local (human) laws. Slavery was abolished in the USA long ago, yet the bible clearly states on numerous occasions that slavery is perfectly acceptable, and even provides guidelines for master/slave interaction.

Just to note:  The Bible was written long before the United States even existed, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

See Leviticus 25:44, also see 1 Peter 2:18. The bible also clearly states that it is acceptable for a master to beat the slave (provided the slave doesn't die as the result of the beating), even though under US law such a beating would be forbidden. See Exodus 21:20-21.

Read on in Leviticus; 25:46 states that "you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."  A little human rights action for ya.  

1 Peter certainly isn't encouraging the acquisition of slaves, it's just advocating a certain response for those who find themselves in a certain position.

By the way, as you have reminded us, U.S. law forbids slavery, and in light of Romans 13, it would be difficult for a Christian to justify taking a slave anyway.  So, your point is somewhat moot.

There seem to be so many conflicts in the teachings of the bible vs. human laws with respect to the inalienablility of human rights.

I find it hard to justify human rights at all without acknowledging a Creator.  Even the Declaration of Independence relies on that.

Personally I find the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html as adopted by the UN in 1948 a far superior document for the promotion of peaceful and harmonious coexistence, especially when compared to bible rules such as the ten commandments and other attempts at the regulation of social interaction.

And the UN Declaration has been so successful that everyone now lives in peace and harmony!!!.......oh wait.......

. . . so now the Romans need to be thrown into the conspiratorial bag of those penning the documents.

Now??? So you are of the opinion that this sort of criticism is recent? That's funny. :) I'm slightly surprised that you haven't heard this charge brought up before (but given your penchant for reading primarily only that which reinforces your biases, I cannot say that I'm really THAT surprised). This is far from recent or uncommon criticism.

I find the whole 'it seems likely' line of argument, in the mouths of skeptics, to basically mean 'I can say any absurd thing I like and it is more likely to be true than whatever a Christian might say." This particular instance is completely at odds with both liberal and conservative scholarship. However, it is right at home with the X-Files brand of thinking.

Absurd? On the contrary, Winsome Munro, John O'Neil, James Kallas, Greek scholar/translator Alexander Pallis, James Moffatt, Ernst Barnikol, and Walter Schmithals are but a few of the Christian scholars who question the Pauline authenticity of Romans 13:1-7.

The position that I hold is a minority position among biblical scholars, to be sure, but clearly no one familiar with biblical criticism would term it 'absurd.' After all, it's not as if an infallible god actually wrote or inspired the Bible, is it? ROTFLMAO

Is it your opinion that no parts of the bible are interpolations???

"Now??? So you are of the opinion that this sort of criticism is recent? That's funny. :) I'm slightly surprised that you haven't heard this charge brought up before"

Indeed, I have heard it before.  Your choice of language here betrays your own lack of scholarship.  'criticism' ... 'charge' .... you are a long way from presenting a point of view that requires a serious response, and you might be sad to learn that Romans is one of the four or five books that are emphatically accepted as genuine books by Paul- by the radical higher source critics themselves, in this instance I refer to the consensus view of the likes of the Jesus Seminar.  More on that in a moment...

I notice that you completely focused on that aspect of my response, while proportionally speaking I spent a great deal more time on a point of yours that I explicitly said was a reasonable challenge.  On that material you were silent.  I trust that means that you are actually going to try to get the books from the library and investigate the matter more fully, but I suspect your avoidance was in reality a signal that you would rather not investigate- so long as you don't know that there is a response (or at least, a variety of principled and reasonable responses)- you can regurgitate the same argument again elsewhere.  Probably prefaced with your diversionary 'interpolation' argument, too.

"Absurd? On the contrary, Winsome Munro, John O'Neil, James Kallas, Greek scholar/translator Alexander Pallis, James Moffatt, Ernst Barnikol, and Walter Schmithals are but a few of the Christian scholars who question the Pauline authenticity of Romans 13:1-7.

The position that I hold is a minority position among biblical scholars,"

Say no more.

Wait... say one more thing... it is indeed a minority DISCREDITED position.

Of course, that is one of the problems with the higher critics, like for example some of those you mentioned above.  Much of their material is based on little to no evidence in the first place, so all one needs is a hunch where the next wave of money to be made is in publishing books and getting in at Newsweek and Time at Christmas and Easter.[/i]

Interesting what turns up when one does a google search:

http://www.noreligion.ca/index.php?topicID=47

http://forums.ariannaonline.com/showthread.php?s=7a530963d3699582133dc3cc8f973905&p=594396#post594396

http://www.able2know.com/forums/about79400.html

http://www.bvalphaserver.com/ftopic-56522-0-days0-orderasc-.html

The first site at least appears to be the originator of Dicoll's cut and paste job.  It is avowedly a "tongue in cheek" response to a spam email regarding whether Muslims can be good Americans.

So your first point has been satisfactorily addressed then? The loyalty issue is out of the way?

Well no, it bothers me when the President places his belief system before the constitution of the country. This to me is a conflict of loyalties on the highest possible level.

You are making a couple leaps here which lead to different discussions entirely.  First, you are assuming that the president is acting within the Christian belief system---something that was not brought up in your original post.  Secondly, you would have to give an example in which the president placed his belief system before the constitution.  None of that addresses the Romans 13 section that I quoted in rebuttal to your previous point.

That is an interesting take. As an Atheist I regard myself as open minded because I have no ancient scripts on which to base my ethics.

Ah, but perhaps you are close minded because you don't consider ancient scripts as a possible source of wisdom...

I must use verifiable life experiences rather that canned 'truths' to find my way through life. Basic human needs are never mutually exclusive. It is only when they are molded into aggressive beliefs and notions of superiority that they become a threat to others.

But beliefs/worldviews can be mutually exclusive.  Can you simultaneously belive in a god and deny the existence of gods?  Believing one or the other does not necessarily make you close minded.  Believing both would make you crazy or incoherent at best.

As an Atheist I do reject god beliefs but I live harmoniously with religious people. I may debate and I may question but I do not judge. The same cannot be said of fundamentalist believers.

Well, we were talking about Christianity, and Christians are commanded not to judge either (see Luke 6:37 and 1 Corinthians 4:5) so your point is irrelevant here.

Socially, no, because a Christians allegiance forbids him to make friends with Muslims or Jews.

I think this is inaccurate. Have any backup for it?

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

I'm not seeing support for your statement here.  I see Christians being driven out and acted hostile towards.  Perhaps you are referring to the last sentence?  God's wrath has come upon them, perhaps, but there is certainly no command to avoid Jews or Muslims in here.  Actually, Paul is TRYING to speak to non-Christians here and he's being driven out by them!

The Christian God expects the same loyalty from his people.
Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.
What would you call Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Ch

First, you are assuming that the president is acting within the Christian belief system.  Secondly, you would have to give an example in which the president placed his belief system before the constitution.

He claims to be a Christian and I mentioned him as an example of conflicting ideas. There are probably numerous examples. The ones that come to mind are the introduction of belief system based teachings into the public school system, public prayer and the ten commandments in the court system, discrimination against gays, the Terri Schiavo case.....

Ah, but perhaps you are close minded because you don't consider ancient scripts as a possible source of wisdom...

They can be, but they have to make sense. The underlying story of the bible places humans into a position of a game character that is torn between the forces of good and evil, having to prove his worth by aligning himself with the right cowd. Yes, that is an utterly ridiculous concept to me.

But beliefs/worldviews can be mutually exclusive.

That is why my moto is: Beliefs are irrelevant and behaviour is prevalent. In order for people of different beliefs to live harmoniously, each group has to limit itself to an extent and their belief system cannot be allowed to supercede the constitution of the country. Empowered and ecouraged by the current US goverment, fundamentalist Christianity appears to have begun an aggressive campaign to dominate and change the general makeup of the United States. A direct violation of the priciple of separation of church and state. Such behaviour can only lead to internal conflict.

Well, we were talking about Christianity, and Christians are commanded not to judge either (see Luke 6:37 and 1 Corinthians 4:5) so your point is irrelevant here.

They are commanded not to but they do judge and attempt to influence as I pointed out above.

I'm not seeing support for your statement here.

Suffice it to say then that a significant number of Christians find enough support in the bible to violently reject other beliefs.

What would you call Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Ch

Perhaps the reason that there are more than one is because documents, in fact, guarantee nothing.

The saint is right. Just look at the egyptian book of the dead, the gilgamesh, the bible, the koran, the rig veda, etc., etc. They guarantee nothing.

That is why my moto is: Beliefs are irrelevant and behaviour is prevalent. In order for people of different beliefs to live harmoniously, each group has to limit itself to an extent and their belief system cannot be allowed to supercede the constitution of the country.

If beliefs are irrelevant, as you say they are, then why is it important that a belief system (as opposed to behavior) not "be allowed to supercede the constitution of the country," as you say it not be?

On the contrary, beliefs -- sincere beliefs, of course -- are relevant. Each of us act upon that which we believe to be true. To believe that someone will act in contradiction to that which he believes to be true is itself a contradiction.

If, for instance, one sincerely believes that homosexuals should be shunned and stigmatized because the creator of the universe, in whose existence one believes, says that homosexuals should be shunned and stigmatized, one will shun and stigmatize homosexuals -- and ought to.

The problem is the irrational belief in an invisible supernatural being who created the universe, and this problem is just as prevalent among moderate and (probably most) liberal Christians as it is among fundamentalists.

To do as the creator of the universe commands if such a creator exists, is entirely rational.