Preserving patriotism
My column for the Daily News in online. It’s called, “Preserving patriotism.” Here’s a bit:
America has a rich history and many institutions of which we can all be proud. Yes, there are terrible atrocities and blunders in our past, but there are also triumphs unequaled in the annals of mankind. There is a reason that the 20th century saw the spread of American ideals — many of which are enshrined in the very Declaration of Independence that we celebrated on Sunday — throughout much of the world. Liberty, the rule of law, and the subjugation of government to the citizens are the sole path to human progress.
America is truly exceptional and Americans should have no qualms about celebrating their love of country. But, as Reagan pointed out, we can’t celebrate that which we don’t know. We should reinvigorate our teaching of American history and civics. An informed citizenry is patriotic and free. An ignorant one is teetering on losing the precious gift that our forefathers bestowed upon us: the great United States of America.
What Christians have given us the secularist, socialists and Muslims are trying to take away.
Things are pretty bad when teaching correct history must be suggested.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 0906 hrs
Christians? Teaching “correct history”? Surely that’s a joke.
Posted by scott on July 06, 2010 at 1121 hrs
... maybe to an enraged liberal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1259 hrs
You can’t help where you were born.
Do you think “Smeety” truly believes Christianity teaches a true history? I don’t think most enlightened Christians would even say that. Look to Texas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1353 hrs
To believe liberals would be to deny that the public schools were started to teach people to read the Bible so they could learn to be good citizens, that the Bible was the main text book in the public schools, that prayer was central to education, that the US Supreme Court declared three times that this is a Christian nation and that most signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution had divinity degrees and went on to do things like start Bible Societies and Harvard Law School.
One of the first text books other then the Bible in public schools was the New England Primer that was used into the 1960’s. A Bible based book that is still a very good book to use to teach our children.
Our founders believed that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty, which gave us the Declaration and Constitution. Of course, non-Christians have been taking that Spirit away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1514 hrs
Our founders believed that where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty
Except for blacks, women, and indians.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1644 hrs
I will simply reiterate what I mentioned when Wendy posted the speech a few days ago. I agree with much of what you wrote. We should indeed all decry the lack of basic historical knowledge that many Americans possess. But Reagan’s speech is mostly advocating an ominous, big brotherish version of patriotism thta our nation is most certainly better off without.
Can’t say that I’m a big fan of institutionalizing anyone’s particular views of patriotism, or cranking up the old emphasis on “civic ritual,” which usually involves mindless displays of dogma that are more about squelching freedom than celebrating it.
The Chinese, the Soviets, the Nazis, they were all big on patriotism and civic ritual too. The real accomplishment of America is that we can have a great nation without stooping to that intimidatory kind of nationalistic garbage - the kind that discourages free thought and encourages people to follow like sheep.
Knowledge is vital. What Reagan’s selling is not - it’s a crochety, backwards-looking, “you whippersnappers get off my lawn” kind of nationalism that has no place in a nation that prides itself on freedom.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 06, 2010 at 1651 hrs
Do you think “Smeety” truly believes Christianity teaches a true history?
Gotta love when one of our public school instructors throws out garbage like this…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1658 hrs
200 years before our shores were spied by white men, the Church was selling indulgences for current and future sins .
In 1492 star chambers in Spain and England tortured and killed non beleivers .
Our shores were inhabited by religious kooks who discriminated against others based solely on religion
maryland was formed so catholics could have their own state/colony to discriminate in,as they were being discriminated against in other states
Sorry- I want absolutely nothing to do with the so called “Christianity” our nation was founded upon.
That “religion” empowered white men to the detriment of all others.
Muslims, Jews, women, africans and in less than 100 years- immigrants -all were second class citizens . !/4 a citizen for Blacks untill 1866
A nation founded under the teachings of jesus- maybe .
But wanting to jump under the banner of what passed for Christianity in 1775 ?
No Thanks
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1816 hrs
Pat said -
“Except for blacks, women, and indians.”
Not everyone followed Christian principals but the principals have paved the way to more rights for all groups then any other nation ever has. The Constitution is still being used for that purpose.
M. Maley said -
“But wanting to jump under the banner of what passed for Christianity in 1775 ?”
I do not know if you blur the line between Catholic and Protestant intentionally or ignorantly but this was probably 99% protestant at the time of the revolution. The people here did not want anything to do with the form of government that prevailed in Europe as you also try to imply was here.
Many nations tried to figure out what made America so great and the French concluded it was because America was good. I don’t see anyone saying that about us any longer.
The fact is that some colonies did not want to allow non-Christians to be allowed but it was decided that they would allow everyone so they could learn and be converted to Christianity. That prevailed until the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s when war was declared on Christianity by the secularist and socialist.
The misunderstandings of our nations history are because its not being taught. Our nation is worse off because of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 1929 hrs
The issue is who gets to decide what is in the history books for schools and what is stressed. Will you teach the good, bad, and ugly? Was it a good thing there wasn’t a “United Nations army” sent to stop the U.S. from our invasion, conquest, and genocide of Native Americans? Should some other nation have stepped in to stop The U.S. war of aggression with Mexico after which we stole the southwest? Discuss the large military presence Great Britain had to maintain in Canada. After America’s failed invasion of Canada in the War of 1812, there were real fears of another American invasion until the mid 1800’s.
When discussing the defeat of Hitler, U.S. textbooks gloss over the Soviet Union’s greater sacrifice. Germany deployed far more resources and suffered more casualties on the eastern front. It was at places like Stalingrad and Kursk where the war really turned against Hitler, not the Battle of the Bulge.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2010 at 2358 hrs
Ted said -
“U.S. textbooks gloss over the Soviet Union’s greater sacrifice.”
They also gloss over the fact that communism is an atheist revolution that killed more then 100 million of its own people for not submitting to atheism, far exceeding all the religious wars of history combined. They also leave out that Nazism was largely driven by the occult. So why are we making atheism our state religion?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 0645 hrs
I just thought I should point out that this ofr fellow does not know what he is talking about. For instance, the founders sort of break down as follows:
Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen
Theistic Rationalists/Unitarians: Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe
Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon
And there are some shades of gray as you would expect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 0946 hrs
Paul Noonan said - “I should point out that this ofr fellow does not know what he is talking about.”
I agree that you should not take my word for it or his.
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ…Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.” George Washington
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1113 hrs
So why are we making atheism our state religion?
Atheism isn’t a religion. Secular government is one of the founding principles of our democracy, though, and I don’t see any good reason why it should be otherwise. People can be religious—governments should not be. Put up a 20-foot Jesus on your rooftop at Christmas. I guarantee you I won’t care. Put it up on the capitol building and then I will insist that it be removed. Can you spot the difference between those two scenarios? What’s your problem with it?
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1128 hrs
Atheism isn’t a religion.
I would tend to disagree with you there.
Put up a 20-foot Jesus on your rooftop at Christmas. I guarantee you I won’t care. Put it up on the capitol building and then I will insist that it be removed. Can you spot the difference between those two scenarios? What’s your problem with it?
I wouldn’t care either way. What’s your problem with that?
Seriously, what harm do you really think a 20-foot Jesus (or Gaia, Muhammad or Wiccan god for that matter) would cause in a public building?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1222 hrs
I would tend to disagree with you there.
And you are simply wrong there.
What’s your problem with that?
I believe in secular government. A government which does not express religious opinions or ideas. A government which preserves this freedom expressly for citizens. The opposite of which is theocracy. (See Iran, Islamic Republic of.)
On a more personal level, I find it insulting when any of my tax dollars are used to promote or endorse views on religion contrary to what I teach my children.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1255 hrs
I believe in secular government. A government which does not express religious opinions or ideas. A government which preserves this freedom expressly for citizens.
That’s not, by any stretch of the imagination, what secular government is. And it’s a good thing the Constitution clearly states otherwise.
Atheism religion? Of course it is. Atheists worship human nature, Mother Earth, Darwin, themselves ...
Why is it that virtually all atheists have the same MO? Porn in the library, Christian-haters, abortionists, Kenysian/Socialist economics, Muslim sypathizers/Israel haters…. ???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1311 hrs
That’s not, by any stretch of the imagination, what secular government is.
You don’t have to “stretch” too far. A government that actively separates itself from spiritual or religious issues is a secular government. And that’s what I want. What does “secular government” mean to you?
Atheism religion? Of course it is. Atheists worship human nature, Mother Earth, Darwin, themselves
Your remarks clearly demonstrate only one thing: you don’t know the meaning of the words “atheism,” “religion” or “worship.”
Why is it that virtually all atheists have the same MO?
Wait, they have porn in the library now?? Gotta get down there more often…
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1320 hrs
Context is important. Express references to Jesus Christ are almost entirely absent from his (actual) writings. And Ofr’s quote is in fact real, but it’s important to understand where it came from.
The Delaware Indians had been formidable opponents, however some pacifist Christian missionaries managed to make some inroads with the tribe, and relations between the Delawares and the colonists was at an uneasy standstill. In November of 1778 an influential Delaware chief was killed my a member of the militia, which threatened to break the peace.
In an effort to save the existing peace, the pacifist contingent of the Delawares set out with a petition to the Continental Congress. They came upon Washington’s forces first. He wrote of the encounter:
“… presented me with a long memorial on various points, which they intend to present also to Congress. I was a little at a loss what answer to give and could have wished they had made their first application there. But as an answer could not be avoided, I thought it safest to couch it in general but friendly terms and refer them to Congress for a more particular one. Though there is reason to believe, they have not adhered very scrupulously to their pretended friendship, it appeared to me to be our present policy at least to conciliate; and in this spirit my answer was conceived. I hope I may not have deviated from the views of Congress. I send a copy of my answer.”
One point that the Delawares made was as follows:
“5th That the said Delaware Nation have established a Town where numbers of them have embraced Christianity under the Instruction of the Reverend and worthy Mr David Ziesberger whose honest zealous Labours & good Examples have Induced many of them to listen to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has been a means of introducing considerable order, Regularity and love of Peace into the Minds of the whole Nation—the[y] therefore hope Congress will countenance & promote the Mission of this Gentleman, so far as they may deem expedient; and they may rely that the Delaware Nation will afford every encouragement thereto in their Power.”
The Washington quote above is in direct response to this point. Make of it what you will. I see it the statement of a diplomat, lacking direction from his superiors, acting in a conciliatory manner, and not necessarily an expression of his own beliefs. Now that you know the relevant context you can decide for yourself.
Just be aware that mentions of devout Christian belief are basically absent from Washington’s writings, which is why “Christian Nation” types need to quote mine from statements like this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1321 hrs
Here is the entire speech:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1322 hrs
Here you can read the Delaware’s petition:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vYwUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317#v=onepage&q&f;=false
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1326 hrs
Sounds like Cold War USSR was Scott’s Utopia.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1332 hrs
Why is it that virtually all atheists have the same MO? Porn in the library, Christian-haters, abortionists, Kenysian/Socialist economics, Muslim sypathizers/Israel haters…. ???
I’m an atheist and…
1. I Don’t want porn in the library…don’t want the “public” library either, but that’s another discussion.
2. I love Christians. And Jews, And Muslims. And Buddhists. And whomever. They are fellow human beings not to be categorized into this or that. Evaluate WHO they are not WHAT they are, and go from there.
3. I abhor abortion. Putting the religion aside, everyone supposedly has the right to life and I believe it is wrong for one human to take the life of another. This also applies to the death penalty, but that’s another discussion.
4. I’m no Keynesian economist. I prefer the Austrian school although I have much more to learn there. That’s another discussion.
5. I don’t sympathize with terrorists (I presume that’s what Muslim now stands for) nor do I hate Israel. I believe Israel can and should fight it’s own battles and not have to seek approval from mommy USA before doing what they think is right.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 07, 2010 at 1332 hrs
Sounds like Cold War USSR was Scott’s Utopia.
Having a secular government equals USSR… hmm. Having a secular government doesn’t mean outlawing religious expression—on the contrary, it safeguards it. Having a secular government doesn’t mean having a secular citizenry. Having a secular government doesn’t mean eliminating private property. Having a secular government doesn’t mean having totalitarian leadership. Having a secular government doesn’t mean getting rid of capitalism or embracing communism.
Other than that, yep—it’s exactly like the USSR.
Atheism religion? Of course it is.
And not playing baseball is now a sport.
Taking a big step back for a minute, this conversation sucks and I just realized why. I’m trying to make my points while staying within the bounds of what is reasonable and logical while you are clearly not limiting yourself in that way. Unfair.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1342 hrs
Having a secular government equals USSR… hmm
Not what I wrote. Nice strawman.
Having a secular government doesn’t mean having a secular citizenry.
Having a secular government doesn’t mean eliminating private property.
Having a secular government doesn’t mean having totalitarian leadership.
Having a secular government doesn’t mean getting rid of capitalism or embracing communism.
I’ll let the readers decide how Scott feels regarding these topics….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1400 hrs
Not what I wrote.
It kind of is what you wrote. I championed the idea of secular government and you retorted that I’d really have loved the USSR. If you’re not trying to equate the two, then you’re saying nothing at all. (I prefer blueberries : Sounds like you would really like programming in Objective C!)
I’ll let the readers decide how Scott feels regarding these topics
There’s no need, because as it happens Scott’s right here to lay it out for you. I really like private property. I really like not having totalitarian leaders. I really like embracing capitalism instead of communism. You might have me on a technicality on the secular citizenry thing. My original statement would have made more sense had I written “secular government does not mean forcing atheism on citizens.” That is, in effect, what the USSR tried to do. And I’m again’ it. What I’m not against is secular citizens. I think everyone should be one. But that’s my private opinion and not one the government should ever push on people. I believe that individuals should decide matters of conscience like this for themselves, period. That puts me squarely OUT of step with the good ol’ USSR, just like the other examples.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1409 hrs
Well, fortunately the sample size of Scott’s writings is a little more than Post#27.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1418 hrs
Meaning, I suppose, that anyone who might favor regulating an industry is a de facto communist. Or something.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1420 hrs
If the hammer and sickle fit…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1430 hrs
I’m fairly certain that Scott does not want the forcible redistribution of private property for the good of the state. And it wold be nice not to trivialize the horror and tragedy of actual communism by attempting to label normal everyday liberals as communists. It’s not different than someone calling Smeety a Nazi. We wouldn’t stand for the latter and we also should not stand for the former.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1441 hrs
It’s nice to reminded that not everyone here is nuts. Thanks.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1446 hrs
I’m fairly certain that Scott does not want the forcible redistribution of private property for the good of the state.
You would be incorrect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1520 hrs
So anyone who favors even the most moderately redistributive tax policy or social safety net whatsoever is a de facto communist.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1522 hrs
Yes, in the same way that you wish to use dogmatic nationalism to marginalize and eliminate enemies of the state for the good of the pure races.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1528 hrs
It’s not that I don’t appreciate the effort, Paul. But you can’t reason with the unreasonable.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1533 hrs
Paul Noonan said - “And Ofr’s quote is in fact real,”
Thank you but it is Washington that said it as he also said this in his inaugural address:
: The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” George Washington
or,
“Let…statemenet and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by…educationg their little boys and girls…(and) leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christan system,” Samuel Adams
or,
“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principals of Christianity…” Benjamin Rush
or,
“Justice and humanity require it (the end of slavery) - Christianity commands it.” Noah Webster
or,
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” George Washington
Paul also said “to label normal everyday liberals as communists”I believe the point was that communism was/is an atheist revolution that killed more people then all religious wars combined ever had. It’s a tyranny of tyrannies. Thereby, why would we make their atheist foundation the foundation of this nation?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1537 hrs
So anyone who favors even the most moderately redistributive tax policy or social safety net whatsoever is a de facto communist.
I do enjoy your nuclear generalizations. As I wrote, scott has years of postings and I’ll gladly let those speak for themselves…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1543 hrs
I believe the point was that communism was/is an atheist revolution
What exactly does that phrase mean to you?
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1553 hrs
: The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” George Washington
First of all, even among the free-thinking members of the founders they would frequently refer to a higher power of some kind from which we derive our natural rights. If you knew a little more about George Washington, and in particular, his personal letters, you would see the use of Heaven here as the absence of the word God. Anyway, I urge everyone to go and read his first inaugural address if you never have and see how much of Washington’s underlying religiosity, or lack thereof, you can gather. Do keep in mind that it is a political speech.
</i>“Let…statemenet and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by…educationg their little boys and girls…(and) leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christan system,” Samuel Adams</i>If you were more literate, you would see Samuel Adams name in my comment above under the title “Orthodox Christians”. I do not claim that all of the founders were not Christians. That would be insane. Many of them clearly were, and many clearly were not, and some seemed to straddle the line. Adams was clearly a Christian. Sigh.
“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principals of Christianity…” Benjamin Rush
Yes, Benjamin Rush was also a Christian. So what?
“Justice and humanity require it (the end of slavery) - Christianity commands it.” Noah Webster
Noah Webster converted to some form of Orthodox Calvinism in 1808. Before that I would put him in a more wishy-washy free-thinker category. So he’s a bit of both, depending on when you catch him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1612 hrs
Paul, as I said before that people should not believe what I said or what you said but what the founders said.
There are hundreds and hundreds of quotes and documents from our founders that have not been taught since the secular/socialist revolution began in this country.
It is estimated that there were 250 founders because of there contributions to Independence. That information is getting out and it is hard to defend a historical myth against it even though you try.
Our country does not have artiest roots although, many un-Christian things have been done and are still being done today to transfer power from the people to the government. It may be looking good for your side right now but we’ll see what the future brings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1649 hrs
I notice you’re not quoting Madison or Jefferson or Hamilton.
A bit odd, don’t you think?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1649 hrs
You probably are baiting me but Alexander Hamilton proposed the formation of the Christian Constitutional Society to spread Christian government to other nations and John Hamilton was a member of the New Jersey Bible Society.
” The attempt by the rulers of a nation (France) to destroy all religious opinion and to pervert a whole people to atheism is a phenomenon of profligacy (act of moral depravity)...To establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity (is) to deprive mankind of its best consolations and animating hopes and to make a gloomy desert of the universe. ” Alexander Hamilton
Must go, may finish later.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1805 hrs
I personally don’t care of Hamilton dressed up as Jesus and flogged himself nightly. I just want a government which leaves religion as a province solely of the people. For the life of me I can’t see why that’s a controversial idea. Can you not see where this principle is the most fair, egalitarian and protective of religious liberty as is possible?
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 1838 hrs
even among the free-thinking members of the founders they would frequently refer to a higher power of some kind from which we derive our natural rights.
The founders did not want a government controlled by religion… nor did they expect one that was devoid of it.
So anyone who favors even the most moderately redistributive tax policy or social safety net whatsoever is a de facto communist.
I guess if you favor it moderately, then you are moderately in favor of Communism. Collecting the wealth from some and then giving it away to others you select is clearly an idea based on communist theory. Just because you don’t confiscate it all doesn’t make it right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 1950 hrs
Well, I guess that would mean every congress, every president, pretty much the entirety of American politics “moderately in favor of communism.” Agree?
Or perhaps you’re about to tell me about some administration which actively pursued zeroing out every redistributive tax, social and fiscal policy on the books.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 2011 hrs
The founders did not want a government controlled by religion… nor did they expect one that was devoid of it.
The founders did not want a government which treated people differently…but they didn’t expect that everyone would be treated the same, either.
Or something.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 2013 hrs
I guess if you favor it moderately, then you are moderately in favor of Communism. Collecting the wealth from some and then giving it away to others you select is clearly an idea based on communist theory. Just because you don’t confiscate it all doesn’t make it right.
“”The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”“
That vague snippet opens the door for any agency, policy, program or regulation that could be explained as promoting the general welfare.
No need to argue with scott any more Son of Stupidity, you agree with him!
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 07, 2010 at 2024 hrs
OFR,
Hamilton is a weird one. I’d never heard this quote before so I googled it, and the first page I got was a list of quotes provided by David Barton. Barton is well known for literally making up quotes and attributing them to the founders. He is a total schumbag and a liar. His name is practically synonymous with dishonesty in the church and state debate. I can’t emphasize enough just how unreliable Barton is. The next two links that came up referred back to Barton. My hunch is that it’s fake, but that’s just a hunch.That said, the one link that I found that gave a source and a year provided the year 1802. This was right after his son Philip died in 1801. Any serious historian will tell you that Hamilton did indeed become a repentant orthodox Christian after that. I doubt Paul would disagree with him. It’s still true though that when he was active in the creation of our system of government, he was not. From 1777-1792, he almost never mentioned he almost never mentioned religion or god in any of his writings. He just didn’t think about it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 2025 hrs
I didn’t realize before that Ronald Reagan was “moderately in favor of communism.” This is interesting!
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 2029 hrs
I didn’t realize before that Ronald Reagan was “moderately in favor of communism.” This is interesting!
It’s in the Constitution scott!
“”The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”“
That vague snippet opens the door for any agency, policy, program or regulation that could be explained as promoting the general welfare.
Communism is in the general welfare! Huzzah!
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 07, 2010 at 2031 hrs
I’m enlightened! I’m renaming this discussion “How I learned to stop worrying and love communism.”
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 2033 hrs
I’m enlightened! I’m renaming this discussion “How I learned to stop worrying and love communism.”
You should! The constitution is always right!
That vague snippet opens the door for any agency, policy, program or regulation that could be explained as promoting the general welfare.
If you can make a case it’s for the general welfare, then it’s constitutional!
I need a new car to go to work in order to pay taxes. Me paying taxes is promoting the general welfare so therefore I have a constitutional right to a new car! I’m writing Obama right now for the make, model, color and options I want.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 07, 2010 at 2039 hrs
Scott and Jay,
Your lack of understanding of Constitutional interpretation is pathetic.“I personally don’t care of Hamilton dressed up as Jesus and flogged himself nightly. I just want a government which leaves religion as a province solely of the people.”
Fine. Start your own country. But in this one, what Alex Hamilton meant when he contributed to the creation our constitution matters.
“Well, I guess that would mean every congress, every president, pretty much the entirety of American politics “moderately in favor of communism.” Agree?
“Or perhaps you’re about to tell me about some administration which actively pursued zeroing out every redistributive tax, social and fiscal policy on the books.”
No, but that doesn’t make ANY of them communist. They’re all a lot closer to that on the spectrum of government power than I am, but none of them are communists. Our last two presidents have taken big government to the extreme in terms of American history, but both are a far cry from communism. Saying so trivializes just how bad communism was. Get some perspective.
“You should! The constitution is always right!”
It IS always right when we’re talking about what the constitution says. I’m not even going to comment on your interpretation of the general welfare clause. You’re either really stupid or really childish.
I read this thread thinking I’d be refutint OFR (who is really really wrong on this topic) but by the end, you two idiots had my attention more.
Reminds me of that Trey Parker line: “I hate Republicans, but I really fucking hate Democrats.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2010 at 2220 hrs
I have to admit, I’m impressed that we’re already 54 comments in and nobody has called me out for saying this:
Learned men cluck their tongues as cynicism supplants their love of country.
While I am not learned, I am certainly cynical. No accusations of hypocrisy? No damnations for naiveté?
Geez, guys… I’m disappointed in you.
Posted by Owen on July 07, 2010 at 2227 hrs
that doesn’t make ANY of them communist.
Then I’m not one either. After all, I’m not calling for taxes on the wealthy that we saw in the time of Kennedy or others.
Previous comments by Son of a Bitch clearly indicate that being in favor of moderately redistributive policies are a sign of communism. It’s only fair to point out that these kinds of policies have been pursued much more vigorously in times past than anything I or modern Democrats are advocating today.
Posted by scott on July 07, 2010 at 2233 hrs
I think his comments are obviously wrong, Scott.
Owen, I didn’t notice since you’re as far away from me on the cynicism scale as scott is from me on the libertarian scale.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 0012 hrs
Hey, I want to legalize marijuana and let gay people marry each other. It’s not like I’m the polar opposite of a libertarian.
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 0747 hrs
Jesus said - “I read this thread thinking I’d be refutint OFR (who is really really wrong on this topic) but by the end, you two idiots had my attention more.”
Although you have never been right on the founding of this nation, you are right about these idiots.
“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” George Washington
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 0808 hrs
Which people did Adams think were not “moral,” we wonders… Who was he talking about?
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 0826 hrs
“You should! The constitution is always right!”
It IS always right when we’re talking about what the constitution says. I’m not even going to comment on your interpretation of the general welfare clause. You’re either really stupid or really childish.
Understanding sarcasm when it’s written is hard. Should I use to /sarcasm tags from now on so it’s clearer for you?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 08, 2010 at 0851 hrs
OFR,
Your camp, beginning with the David Barton crew, is well known for making up quotes and attributing them to the founding fathers, or for taking quotes way out of context. If you’re going to quote them, please provide date and the name of the document the quote comes from.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1016 hrs
Also,
Context is everything here. You have to realize that most people in this country were Christian at the time. The founders were very very smart. They were also basically philosophers, but also politicians. They thought about things, which is antithetical to religion. But they were also politicians. Understanding that there are problems with attributing any line of thought to the founders as a whole, it’s pretty clear that most of them wondered about god and the nature of the universe. That’s pretty agnostic. Some of them made guesses, and even tried out new religions throughout their lives. But I think there’s strong evidence that several of them doubted that we could know for sure whether there was a god.
Another way to describe several of them (e.g. Franklin, Washington, JOhn Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) is the term “universalist.” This basically means that they thought there was only one god and that all religions were speaking of that God even if their own cultural biases and traditions were laid over the top in terms of dogma and ritual. One piece of evidence for this theory is that they used very general names for god. (See e.g. Declaration of Independence: “nature’s god” and “creator” and “divine providence.”). Washington and Jefferson often referred to “the great governor of the universe.” Even more telling is the fact that they often changed how they referred to “god” based on who they were talking to (e.g. Jefferson saying “But we thank the Great Spirit who took care of you on the ocean, and brought you safe and in good health to the seat of our great Council…” in an 1803 letter to the Choctaw Indians; Madison and Washington did this too).
Unless maybe Jefferson believed in the Choctaw Indians’ “Great Spirit” god? Notice I don’t just pull quotes out of context.
I will give you this one though, and you can see how well it meshes with your John Adams quote:
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
This 1797 treaty was signed by John Adams. BEfore that it was read out loud in its entirety before congress and approved unanimously.
Link: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1028 hrs
What Christians have given us the secularist, socialists and Muslims are trying to take away.
@ Owen - Unfortunately. ofr’s first sentence of the first post to this thread instantly doomed the direction it has taken. Nothing like radical, inflammatory statements to diminish the ability to recognize the subtleties of the written word…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1028 hrs
Learned men cluck their tongues as cynicism supplants their love of country.
Your “country” imho is the nature of the people, culture, and government. The fact that your country may have been great, or done great things to be proud of does not dampen the cynicism that one may have over the current state it is in. I am very cynical about the future of this nation and the level of class warfare present in it. I believe that America could have more great days ahead, as it has had in it’s past. It could also head down the more shadowy path of the American brand of socialism that is currently in vogue. That is not a nation that one could be proud of, or find exceptionalism in. It would be just another cookie cutter conglomerate of grey governance and grey culture…. not a shining city on a hill to be sure. Acknowledging the reality of that possibility and being cynical about it is hardly hypocritical for those who are proud of our past traditions.
Previous comments by Son of a Bitch clearly indicate that being in favor of moderately redistributive policies are a sign of communism.
Redistribution of wealth is one of the pillars that communism is built upon. Like I said, if you embrace that moderately, then you support communism moderately as well. Don’t be angry at me for what YOU believe. If taking peoples wealth by force and giving it away to other people that are in your favor is the sort of thing you embrace, then just admit what it is and move on.
I think his comments are obviously wrong, Scott.
Explain how I am wrong? Incremental institution of redistributive policies is incremental institution of aspects of communism. It’s not a full communist system, no… but those ideas clearly belong under the heading of communism far more than they do under the heading of capitalism. Seizing wealth in order to enact socialist economic policies and punish the rich is classicism, socialism, and clearly a bit of communism. That is clearly the direction that progressives would have us move in. Where am I wrong there?
Understanding sarcasm when it’s written is hard. Should I use to /sarcasm tags from now on so it’s clearer for you?
Might be easier to use a /nitwit tag in your signature.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1050 hrs
“This 1797 treaty was signed by John Adams.”
Jesus, I have to chuckle how you tell me to present more facts while you’re giving me your personal perceptions and opinions.
We both know that Muslims were pirating our ships and declaring jihad on the US because they thought we set up State Church as was done in Europe.
We also know that a state church was not set up because the protestant churches did not want any denomination to have authority over them but wanted a government where they all could come together and agree on government policy.
Adams and others were trying to settle this matter with the Muslims to avoid holy war. It’s not a denial of the Christian principals that all denominations had agreed on to found the nation.
We also know that we did go to war with the Muslims and defeated them in Tripoli. Our Marines still sing about it.
The declaration of Independence was also a declaration of dependence on God.“I sat next to John Adams in Congress, and upon my whispering to him and asking him if he thought we should succeed in our struggle with Great Britain, he answered me, “Yes - if we fear God and repent of our sins.” This anecdote will, I hope, teach my boys that it is not necessary to disbelieve Christianity or to renounce morality in order to arrive at the highest political usefulness or fame.” Benjamin Rush
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1059 hrs
Yes, that was the context. Which is exactly my point, which I thought I explained in the paragraphs preceding that quote. You have to look at context. When these guys were dealing with the Christian masses, they sometimes spoke in Christian terms, and when they spoke to Muslims, they didn’t. And when they spoke to Native Americans, they talked of the great spirit. But Christian language is rarely found in their letters to each other (Ben Rush and Patrick Henry and a few others being exceptions to that. Those dudes were definitely wacko Christians). Jefferson edited all the weirdo supernatural shit out of his bible for Chrisake.
The Declaration of Independence itself doesn’t really talk about the Christian god (as noted above). It uses very general terms for a higher power. And the Constitution, which is a MUCH more important document, never mentions religion at all, except to prohibit religious tests for public offices. In the Amendments, it also only mentions religion to establish government noncognizance of religion by way of the two religion clauses.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1118 hrs
Jesus -
I’m a firm believer in context and think our judges should be sworn to it.
In the context of this debate it cannot be denied that your arguments are rather new to the history of the US. There were always people that wanted to change our Christian government but never denied that it was Christian.
Isn’t this just part of the secular socialist war that was declared on Christianity in the mid-twentieth century?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1208 hrs
Are you saying this is the first time you’ve heard somebody suggest that we don’t have a Christian government? You need to get out more. Maybe get your news somewhere besides World Nut Daily. The evidence is on my side, bro.
I thought maybe your tinfoil hat would protect you fromt he “secular socialist war”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1228 hrs
“In the context of this debate it cannot be denied that your arguments are rather new to the history of the US. There were always people that wanted to change our Christian government but never denied that it was Christian.”
It can be denied, because it is not true. The debate was had by the founders. There is nothing new about it.
Context again is important to understanding this. You’ve cited a few of the Orthodox Christian founders in this debate, and so anyone still reading this can see their writing style. Ben Rush was overtly, unapologeticly Christian. If this wing had been as influential to the founding of the nation as you say (or if the deistic/universlists were as Christian as you claim) we would expect the Constitution to reflect this, wouldn’t we?
We would expect Jesus to be all over the thing. We would expect a great deal of giving thanks, asking for blessings, praising the Lord, and perhaps an outright prayer.
You don’t see any of that because the founders had this debate 250 years ago.
Also, there is no secular/socialist war (and how those two get lumped together I’ll never understand, other than Christians, don’t like either for disconnected reasons).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1239 hrs
Also, there is no secular/socialist war (and how those two get lumped together I’ll never understand, other than Christians, don’t like either for disconnected reasons).
Secularism and Socialism are joined at the hip. Not a coincidence that USSR was anti-religion. It stems from the source of (or lack thereof) morality by the majority of atheists.
But I digress .... I’d be curious to know what society is the desired model used by our secular socialists? Scott?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1255 hrs
Jesus and Paul -
The Supreme Court ruled three times this is a Christian Nation, Roosevelt sent Christian Bibles to the troops during the war, the public schools were set up to teach people so they could read the Bible and be good citizens and prayer in schools was central to education.
Your denials of Christianity sound strangely similar to those who claim the holocaust did not happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1257 hrs
Ha. None of us are denying that Christianity exist. We’re denying that this country was “founded on Christian principles” and all that nonsense.
Please provide the names of these cases in which you claim the Supreme COurt “ruled three times this is a Christian Nation.” Ha! I’d LOVE to read these case.
Seriously, can you provide ANY sources for this stuff you’re claiming? Afraid I might actually read the case?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1311 hrs
“Secularism and Socialism are joined at the hip.”
Most of my atheist friends are libertarians. The thing about Soviet of Maoist Communism is that it wasn’t really atheist in the pure sense. God to those societies was Communism. They believed it dogmatically. To link Communists with modern day agnostics and atheists just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I think you’re confused about how morality and religion are linked (if at all). Religion is an invention of man that is used to explain things. Once upon a time it explained the movement of the stars and the age of the earth and things like that. Then it was proven wrong on those things. The vast majority of people have similar morals with respect to killing and stealing and things like that. They just do. No matter which religion thay subscribe to or whether it’s none at all. People also tried to explain this using religion. Morality is something that can’t be proven, so some people still attribute it to religion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1319 hrs
Might be easier to use a /nitwit tag in your signature.
Posted by A Son of Liberty on July 08, 2010 at 1050 hrs
Whatever you say Son of Stupidity! You’re so smart!
“”The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”“
That vague snippet opens the door for any agency, policy, program or regulation that could be explained as promoting the general welfare.
-A Son of Liberty
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 08, 2010 at 1324 hrs
“We’re denying that this country was “founded on Christian principles” and all that nonsense. “
The problem is that those denials started during your generation and do not represent the history of the US.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1352 hrs
At least you guys have no trouble calling people communists or Nazis. Consistency is good, I suppose.
Anyway, the Supreme Court has never ruled that America is a Christian nation, which is why you didn’t cite any cases. Had you explored this myth a bit further you would have found the 1892 case Holy Trinity Church v. United States. In that case you would have found the following quote from Justice Brewer:
“These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”
Which you no doubt would have cited without any context and ignored the word “unofficial.” The case deals with a Federal law prohibiting a company from pre-paying for the transportation of non-citizens to work at said company. It was challenged by HT as they paid to have a an Englishman be the new rector. Brewer was making a public policy argument, that most people in the country were Christians and that it was likely not the intent of the legislature to outlaw churches from hiring famous religious speakers (as opposed to more protectionist aims).
But don’t take my word for it. Brewer wrote a book on the subject. It’s called “The United States: A Christian Nation”, published in 1905. A relevant section:
“But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...]
Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. “
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1357 hrs
Note also that i just posted a “denial” from 105 years ago.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1402 hrs
Not a coincidence that USSR was anti-religion.
it’s not a coincidence, you’re right. But I think the real reason is that if you’re going to set up a totalitarian regime you need to make sure there’s no other higher authority who might disagree with what your leaders say. Especially foreign ones like the Pope.
It stems from the source of (or lack thereof) morality by the majority of atheists.
You’re a sanctimonious asshole. Do you not see yourself? How can you have your head that far up your behind and be unaware of it?
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 1413 hrs
Geez OFR. Busted. It’s gross to me how you pro-churchers just cut and paste bulshit information from David Barton or World Nut Daily all over the internet. You guys spread your nonsense like disease.
And how could you be so totally ignorant as to think this is a new argument? Try reading this: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3743
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1430 hrs
“it’s not a coincidence, you’re right.”
No he isn’t. It’s absolutely a coincidence. There is no reason those two things need to go together. There are plenty of cruel, oppressive governments that were religious too. They almost all support big government, as you’d have to to be a oppressive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1433 hrs
Once upon a time it explained the movement of the stars and the age of the earth and things like that. Then it was proven wrong on those things.
JIJAWM, I understand and respect your right to not believe in Christ, but this is what you think the Bible was/is teaching? It is true that many religions teach similar morals. Doesn’t that point to the idea that religion is primarily about teaching morals? I mean, many religions have non-similar creation beliefs that take up less than one hundredth of the book. To me that points more to the idea that religions are about teaching morals rather than history and creation.
What is the secular alternative to teaching morals? Laws? Have you ever played Balderdash or other games that have phrases starting with: ‘In Oregon, it is illegal for your llama to…’
Parents? I think that one speaks for itself. Every parent is different. You could hardly have a consistent societal list of morals with individual parents as the teachers.
Schools are the logical choice, but civics is not even a class offered in schools today and all the familiar parables and other moral teaching devices have religious roots and by God (not) we can’t use those. In what class are they taught right and wrong, good and evil? (If you say all, I will either laugh or puke.)The truth is, that if a kid does not go to Sunday school or private school, there is no class or curriculum that teaches basic right and wrongs. Kids are not taught to respect any elders besides (maybe) their own family and laws or at least school rules, support disrespect. Sure, most kids are told by someone (not someone they likely respect)that stealing is bad and killing worse, but what many learn is that penalties may be acceptable if they desire or hate enough, especially if you are under 18.
I guess my opinion on most of the commentary here is that semantics ain’t that important. OFR is not wrong that most of the founding fathers believed that a higher power gave men natural rights. A higher power was a good way to teach right and wrong or good and evil. Slavery was present then, they could have written the “All men are created equal..” lines very differently that could have immortalized slavery. I believe it was worded that way on purpose for the future.
I think OFR is wrong that Christianity was the prime mover in the creation of our founding documents, but clearly God in whatever name they used at any politically charged moment was instrumental. OFR is correct that a new focused definition of secularism has grown steadily in the past 40-50 years. To argue Christian or Deist is just a way to sidestep the real point in my opinion. The majority of the founding fathers had a relatively consistent set of morals that they learned from their religious beliefs (even the least religious man who signed the founding documents went to church as a child and learned their values from it), and those values were present in those documents.
It is clear to me that education was not in the constitution as a Governmental duty. It had commonly been a church function and no one of the founding fathers mentioned that they had a problem with that. (If anything, that infers that they thought education was a church function and, if anything, Government should not interfere with the church)When public education began, of course it took its lead from the schools of the time and Bibles were a primary text. To standardize, specific religious sect contexts were later removed.
Much more recently, it has gone further beyond that when someone decided that public education was a State Function and separation of church and state somehow means that not a speck of anything religious can appear in a school. Whether you want to spin that as some sort sneaky jihad against religion, well meaning liberals, an atheist conspiracy, or make ways to deny it is happening does not change the fact that it is currently the trend. It is not amazing, and is not likely to destroy our nation. The US has gone through secular and religious cycles before and, I believe, will again.
I think that a continued ebb in morals will (has already started) cause a backlash back towards religion. I do not believe it is a random fact that all (as in 100%) nine of my friends that are or have been public school teachers sent or are sending their kids to private schools, and not specifically to be taught religion. They are just unwilling to send them to the hells they work in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1523 hrs
“JIJAWM, I understand and respect your right to not believe in Christ, but this is what you think the Bible was/is teaching? It is true that many religions teach similar morals. Doesn’t that point to the idea that religion is primarily about teaching morals? I mean, many religions have non-similar creation beliefs that take up less than one hundredth of the book. To me that points more to the idea that religions are about teaching morals rather than history and creation.”
It’s one thing the Bible is teaching—or rather, trying to account for. I find it more interesting that many religions have SIMILAR creation beliefs. My point about this is that, first, religion is man-made, and second, that it’s point is to explain the unexplainable whether it’s how stuff works or why you should be good.
“What is the secular alternative to teaching morals?”
This is such a weird question. How about all of those things you mentioned? How about the market? How about our brains? How about the PSA announcements at the end of GI Joe cartoons? Any of those would be better than the bible. You ever read that shit? It’s really sick and perverted. It certainly doesn’t teach good morals in like 75% of it. The VAST majority of people know right from wrong and there is zero evidence that religious people are more moral than non-religious people.
As for your discussion of public schools, I don’t really see how that fits into this discussion. I’m certainly no advocate for public schools, and certainly not as they cerrently exist. But that has nothing to do with religion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1600 hrs
Paul & Jesus -
There has never been a time that this country was consider to be founded by atheist or was to adopt atheism as its prevailing religion or belief system until this generation. Your arguments are absurd at best and I will remain convinced by the founders of this nation.
“I have examined all (religions) ... and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have ever seen.” John Adams“The Bible itself (is) the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world.”
&
“One of the beautiful boast of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the common law…There has never been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity lying at its foundation…I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society.”
Joseph Story, US Supreme Court Justice, Father of American Jurisprudence.“The Bible is a book worth more then all other books that were ever printed.” Patrick Henry
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1616 hrs
if I may interject… I don’t care whether our country was founded by atheists or not. It’s irrelevant to my central point whether atheism is its “prevailing religion” or not. Even if 99% of all Americans who ever lived were devout Christians—including every single founder—it does not change my contention that we should have secular government.
I want a government which leaves religious expression to the individual, where it belongs. No American should ever have to listen to his elected representative preach to him or her in a manner inconsistent with his/her own beliefs. No American should ever have to obey laws without secular purposes. That is what I want.
It’s a separate point when I say that I believe having this kind of government is in no way incompatible with our founding documents. If, however, you were able to convince me that the Constitution forbade having this kind of government I’d immediately begin a campaign to amend it. Nobody has yet convinced me that it is so.
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 1642 hrs
OFR,
Atheism isn’t a religion. Nobody is arguing that the United States was founded by atheists. As we’ve said time and time again, several of the founders WERE Christians, a few were atheists, most were somewhere between. But the point is that as religious as Benjamin Rush and Patrick Henry and John Adams in his later life were, that doesn’t mean that those beliefs played a major role in early America. The founders took great care to keep religion out of the Constitution and of government. It’s not a country built on Christianty or on atheism. It’s a country built without paying much attention at all to religion.And also, the fact that you just keep quoting the founders that we all admit were Christian, and without citing where the quote comes from, just shows what kind of person you are.
Scott,
You’re not helping. Geez…. Let’s talk about what kind of government we should have later. We’re trying to figure out what kind of government we DO have. You’ll be happy to know that I’m correct and that the one we DO have is the kind you want.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1721 hrs
Jesus ignorantly said - ” Atheism isn’t a religion”
but the court says:
These words (from the First Amendment)...are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to “the infidel, the atheist.” Allegheny v. ACLU, 1989
The rest of what he says is imaginary buffoonery..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1737 hrs
Oh, and John Marshall is the “Father of American Jurisprudence.”
Here are some more fun quotes from our founders. I’ll even provide you with sources:
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789“Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”
-James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
-James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1748 hrs
Here’s the whole quote from that case:
“Precisely because of the religious diversity that is our national heritage, the Founders added to the Constitution a Bill of Rights, the very first words of which declare: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” Perhaps in the early days of the Republic these words were understood to protect only the diversity within Christianity, but today they are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to “the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism.” It is settled law that no government official in this Nation may violate these fundamental constitutional rights regarding matters of conscience.”
The whole line “the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian fath such as Islam or Judaism” would seem to indicate he considered Islam and Judaism to be non-Christian religions and Atheism to be something else.
Do you even read the stuff you’re quoting?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1759 hrs
In that same case, the majority says this: “A secular state, it must be remembered, is not the same as an atheistic or antireligious state. A secular state establishes neither atheism nor religion as its official creed.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1802 hrs
guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to “the infidel, the atheist.”
That’s kind of like saying that since “sports freedom” guarantees the freedom not to play means that not playing baseball is a sport.
You’re about as ignorant as you can possibly be on this point. As I said before, you either don’t understand the word “atheism” or “religion.”
And anyway, why do you think it’s ok—preferable, even—to have a government which goes out of its way to contradict what you believe as a matter of conscience? What possible good purpose does it serve to have a government express religious feelings or ideas or preferences at all? Why is it bad to leave this realm solely to private citizens?
Something tells me that the reason you’re so willfully ignorant on this is because right now you’re winning. THe government expresses religious ideas more or less consistent with what you believe. If the shoe were on the other foot—if you lived in a place where the president said “Allah akbar” at the conclusion of each speech—you’d suddenly see the wisdom of secular government.
The other thing I notice is that you’re not answering my questions at all. You seem to prefer citing the religious utterances of the founding fathers instead, as if that is any kind of answer.
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 1808 hrs
The point was made but there are more cases:
“Atheism may be a religion under the establishment clause.” Malnak v. Yogi, 1977
“Secular humanism may be a religion for purposes of First Amendment.” Grove v. Mead School Dist. 1985
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1824 hrs
So after what society would the United States of Scott be modeled?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1906 hrs
I notice you’re not addressing any of the points I’ve made nor are you answering any of the questions I’ve raised.
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 1913 hrs
Seriously, do you read the stuff you’re relying on?
Malnak v. Yogi is a case I’d never read before but I looked it up and it’s a US District Court case that held that transendental mediation, as it was taught in a public high school, was a religion under the Establishment Clause. It had nothing to do with atheism, even if there was some throwaway dicta mentioning it. I didn’t read the whole case, it’s quite long. But I didn’t even see that quote in it? What paragraph is it in?
http://trancenet.net/law/nj/nj1.shtml
In Grove, which is a 9th Circuit case, not a Supreme Court case, the Court held that there was no Establishment Clause violation when a school taught some book called The Learning Tree. It said the quote you included as dicta and cited a case that has since been overruled.
http://openjurist.org/753/f2d/1528
Check out the source material before you rely on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1917 hrs
... meaning you haven’t found a functioning society ideal for your secular socialism.
I thought the sanctimonious asshole thing was rhetorical but I acknowledge the comment, if that makes you feel better.
Scott, your contempt for Christianity is noted. I really don’t know what to respond… you apparently acknowledge the Constitution doesn’t provide you with the secularism you desire… so I guess my response is ... what existing functional society is closest to the one you so desire?
I’m not asking the question in order to stump you (that was an unintended consequence). I am legitimately curious to your answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1924 hrs
ou apparently acknowledge the Constitution doesn’t provide you with the secularism you desire
I acknowledge no such thing. In fact, I wrote very clearly that nobody has been able to convince me that it does not provide for that exact thing. You certainly haven’t.
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll respond to your question if you respond to mine. Why is it a bad thing for religious expression to be left as the sole province of individuals? Why is it a good thing for governments to express religious feelings/ideas?
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 1928 hrs
Why is it a bad thing for religious expression to be left as the sole province of individuals?
I do not believe it is a ‘bad thing’. I don’t want to intrude on your atheism and I don’t want you to intrude on my Christianity.
Why is it a good thing for governments to express religious feelings/ideas?
GWB or BHO saying they ‘pray for the safe return of the troops’ provides comfort and support for their fellow Christians that are soldiers. I think that is great. I do not and would not support a Christian Theocracy.
I’ll admit… I’m not an expert on Freedom of Religion and those arguments made regarding the Constitution. I am relatively familiar with everything discussed here, but no expert…. I am going to have to find a couple books regarding…
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll respond to your question if you respond to mine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 1940 hrs
GWB or BHO saying they ‘pray for the safe return of the troops’ provides comfort and support for their fellow Christians that are soldiers.
It doesn’t offend me so much that I sit and shake with rage about it. But really, if you think about it? Why can the president—who represents all Americans—not simply use another word besides “pray”? What about soldiers and families who are atheists? Or who don’t use the word “God” to describe the deity they worship? Do they feel comforted when the president invokes God to bless them and the country they love? Why the favoritism? The purpose of fairness would be well served without such things. I get that presidents are people with their own beliefs to which they are entitled. But is it so hard to think a little bit when writing a speech instead of slathering religious ideas all over the place every time he speaks “ex cathedra,” as it were? It is not.
I don’t want to intrude on your atheism
I’m not sure how to take that. Thanks? Still, isn’t it a basic tenet of a proselytizing religion that you do want to “intrude” on my atheism? Perhaps you mean you don’t want the government to intrude on it. If so, heartfelt thanks. And I for my part do not want the government to intrude on your Christianity, either. Really.
On to your question.
First, I find fault with the question itself. I’m not here making an argument for a certain kind of “society.” I’m making the argument that I want a certain kind of government. And examples of secular government are found all over the world—including the United State of America, despite constant attempts to resist fully realizing that ideal. It’s kind of like how we all tell ourselves that we established a “free country” in 1776—when in fact we spent a long, long time afterward trying to make good on that ideal. Other countries with secular governments are all around us. In fact, just about the only ones who don’t fit that description are found in northern Africa and the middle east. And I can tell you I don’t want to live in Argentina, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
I know that some folks want to make a big deal out of the fact that China or the former Soviet Union have secular governments. But secular government isn’t their problem—it’s communism and the outlawing of religious freedom that’s the problem. Neither of which are a consequence of secular government.
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 1957 hrs
So, specifically, what country best represents your vision of how a gov’t should function?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 2007 hrs
Our own, possibly. Or perhaps some european ones.
It’s a slippery question because it involves a whole hell of a lot of other things besides secularity. Surely you realize that.
Posted by scott on July 08, 2010 at 2009 hrs
The government should neither promote nor hinder the religious, or non-religious beliefs of it’s citizens. Government’s responsibility is to ensure that a person’s belief system is not infringed upon by those with opposing beliefs.
Of course, that never happens because politicians need to suck up to partisan constituents for votes in order to further the demands of the oligarchy that is actually in control of our government. And that’s a shame. The majority is being played for fools.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2010 at 2121 hrs
I do not belong to a religion and I am not a religious person. However, I believe the b.s. promoting atheism is leading our country into tyranny.
I also see in Denmark that atheist are promoting their Christian heritage because it provides freedom and protection for people to believe as they please and to stop the Muslim attempts to control their society. I think I have read that Muslims hate atheist more then Christians and Jews.
Atheist like Jesus want you to believe that atheist through deception and trickery founded this nation but the fact is that is what they are doing now to hijack our society for socialism.
The choice between our Christian roots or atheism is a choice between liberty or tyranny. If you watch the news you know how close we are to the later.
Thank you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2010 at 0704 hrs
I don’t think anybody has suggested that any of our founding fathers were socialists. I think it’s time to take off the tinfoil hat, buddy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2010 at 0718 hrs
...it does not change my contention that we should have secular government.
Just so my position is clear, I fully agree with Scott that we do have, we should have, and our founding fathers meant us to have a secular Government.
Atheism is not a religion! It is the lack thereof. I have heard many statements by various famous people who used metaphor to say that “atheists worship…”, you can fill in the blank with money, secular humanism, blah, blah, blah, but it was a metaphor. If you think JIJAWM or any atheist besides the occasional crazy actually spends time worshipping anything, you are the foolish one.
My only problem with our secular Government has been when it has taken a privatized or religious function and (for the best of intentions) decided to make it a Government function. This action redefined the function as Public and it shouldn’t. Education was a religious function. I am not arguing that it should still be and that there should be no standardization of education. However, just because Government has stuck their hand in, should not mean that it needs to be redefined regarding ‘separation of Church and State’. The same thing is happening with marriage. Government can and should set up an equivalent under the law for same sex unions. It should not attempt to redefine the ecclesiastical term marriage or try to force churches to perform ceremonies uniting those couples if it is against that churches tenets to do so. (And that JIJAWM is how public school fits in to this discussion. Public schools are the primary method used today to crowd out or smother any and all reference to religion ever having been a positive influence in the life of anyone.)
The State has some major violations of the separation of church and state. Yet Scott’s primary concern is whether a Presidents says a prayer for soldiers? Sorry Scott, but if I was in Afghanistan right now and a Muslim prayed to Allah for my safe return home, I would take that as a comfort. Even in my atheist stage, I felt my Mom praying for me ‘couldn’t hurt’. I was never offended that she prayed for my soul, why should I be. Not that I am currently, but JIJAWM, would you be offended if I prayed for you? I am quite sure you know that there is no need, but would your feelings be hurt, or would you be angry if I prayed for you?
If you do not believe in God, what is a prayer but a general positive thought concerning you. It does not go to some great spirit in the sky who actually helps you in any way, but it is still a well wish about you. Is that so bad? Is that so offensive?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2010 at 0811 hrs
However, just because Government has stuck their hand in, should not mean that it needs to be redefined
It kind of does, though. You use the example of marriage and it’s a pretty good one. The big bad government didn’t “stick their hand in” and wrest marriage away from churches. Religious people wanted marriage to be a civic institution, one that is backed up and reinforced by the law of the land. And for a long time they sure were diggin’ the results. From Taxes to divorce to infidelity, they really liked having the ability to appeal to a court and get some backup. The point is people willingly turned this into a civic institution, a legal arrangement as opposed to a solely religious one.
But you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. It was only a matter of time before someone else made other appeals to the law. What? Gay people want equal protection? Well, sure, but… marriage is a religious institution!
Wrong answer. The cat’s out of the bag, the wine’s out of the bottle. You did this and it’s far too late to undo it. Marriage is a civic and legal arrangement. And gay Americans have every right to expect to be included without religious objections stopping them.
Government can and should set up an equivalent under the law for same sex unions.
Not here in Wisconsin it can’t. “Similar” legal arrangements to marriage are banned.
But even that can and will change with time. As I said, the deed’s already been done. I feel like I’m watching it in slow motion. And it’s very clear that the end of the process is marriage for everyone, gays included.
or try to force churches to perform ceremonies uniting those couples if it is against that churches tenets to do so.
That is sheer fantasy. Total paranoia.
Yet Scott?s primary concern is whether a Presidents says a prayer for soldiers?
Uh, no. It’s not. And I’m generally not offended by people’s prayers—unless they be the kind of prayers where they ask Jesus to help Scott see that everything Scott believes is evil and wrong amen. Those ones get under my skin sometimes. But generally, no. Someone wants to ask God to look out for me or help me in some way, go for it. I’m just expressing my belief that the government should at least try to remain neutral on religious ideas, as it purports to represent all of us.
Posted by scott on July 09, 2010 at 0840 hrs
Wrong answer. The cat’s out of the bag, the wine’s out of the bottle. You did this and it’s far too late to undo it. Marriage is a civic and legal arrangement. And gay Americans have every right to expect to be included without religious objections stopping them.
I disagree with this line of reasoning. Note!!! I don’t disagree with your view, only this line of reasoning. If we followed this through the days of our country, we’d still have a ban on alcohol, slavery, and women not able to vote. It’s trivial to undo it (again, I don’t disagree with you, just your reasoning on why).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2010 at 2243 hrs
I’m not sure I follow you. I think my argument is a pretty good one. Marriage might once have been the domain of churches, but by popular demand it’s now a civic institution. And while civic institutions are not required to obey the laws of your religious institutions, they ARE required to treat people equally. So coming out now and saying it’s a religious thing that the government can’t redefine is too late.
Posted by scott on July 09, 2010 at 2255 hrs
Marriage might once have been the domain of churches, but by popular demand it’s now a civic institution….. So coming out now and saying it’s a religious thing that the government can’t redefine is too late.
Ultimately the next step in this gay marriage process is forcing businesses ‘in the name of fairness’ to pay for benefits of same-sex couples ... pensions, health insurance, etc.
Scott can say in one breath that he wants to keep religion out of government and in the next he’ll demand a law be created to force business owners pay insurance benefits due to same-sex marriages. And in the next breath he’ll argue why the theory of evolution is the only possible source of human existence that should be taught in public schools….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2010 at 2338 hrs
Ultimately the next step in this gay marriage process is forcing businesses ‘in the name of fairness’ to pay for benefits of same-sex couples
I’m not really sure what you’re objection to this is—if they’re married couples. If you’re a business and you offer benefits to some married couples burt not others, yeah, that’s discrimination and you shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Where’s the problem, exactly?
the theory of evolution is the only possible source of human existence that should be taught in public schools
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Care to elaborate?
Posted by scott on July 09, 2010 at 2342 hrs
that’s discrimination
... not in Wisconsin….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2010 at 2346 hrs
... and where is the secularism in forcing a Christian business owner to pay for health insurance for a gay civil union? Is that secularism over-ridden by ‘fairness’?
- - - - -
Scott, you are completely full of shit on this whole ‘secular’ government decry…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 0842 hrs
Neither of these last two comments make any sense. Have you been drinking?
Posted by scott on July 10, 2010 at 0927 hrs
Neither of these last two comments make any sense….to someone such as Scott whom hasn’t thought out his view with regard to some utopian secularist society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 0934 hrs
Either you want to take another shot at explaining it to me or you don’t. Up to you, man.
Yes, I expect business owners who offered family insurance benefit would in fact have to pay it for their gay employees who were married. Until such time as gay people can marry I don’t see anyone being forced to pay for anything. Are we square on that? If not, what’s your malfunction?
Something’s bugging you about evolution. Want to tell me what it is? Yes, I would like it to be taught in school, as it’s the pretty much the foundation of the biological sciences. Got a problem with that?
Posted by scott on July 10, 2010 at 0943 hrs
Yes, I expect business owners who offered family insurance benefit would in fact have to pay it for their gay employees who were married.
So you don’t want secularism when it doesn’t fit according to your beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 0948 hrs
I think there’s a problem with the way you’re using the word “secularism.” Like, you don’t know what it means.
Posted by scott on July 10, 2010 at 0957 hrs
I’m just curious to if your whole secular gov’t argument was founded with you and a four-foot bong named Kamala.
‘Hey, Kamala, wouldn’t it be cool if no one bothered anyone with any type of religious bullshit ever, mannnnn… that would be sooooo coool….. ’ glub, glub, glub
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 1017 hrs
The whole secularism movement always leaves me wondering one thing. If we are NOT endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, then those rights are nothing more than one man’s opinion… they are not, in that case, universal, but rather just a set of cultural ideas that have no more value than socialism, communism, or fascism.
Are all men created equal? Do we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? In the secularist, wall banning religion and God from ANY influence on governance version of government, those are not natural rights at all… they can’t be. They are just one set of opinions in a diverse world of varied governments… opinions that have no more value than any others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 1405 hrs
...an Atheist theocracy… and where is the source of morality?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 1514 hrs
If we are NOT endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, then those rights are nothing more than one man’s opinion
So let me understand clearly. “Inalienable rights” must be bestowed by God, otherwise they aren’t inalienable? Couldn’t it just be that we are born with them? Perhaps they are bestowed by “our very nature”? Are you sure there’s just no other way to claim inalienable rights for people?
Besides, saying that they are bestowed by God isn’t the iron-clad reasoning you suggest. Many people don’t believe in God. Others wonder which God you’re talking about. Plus, ideas about God and what He wants do tend to vary over time.
Posted by scott on July 10, 2010 at 1515 hrs
an Atheist theocracy
Is an oxymoron.
Posted by scott on July 10, 2010 at 1516 hrs
If we are NOT endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, then those rights are nothing more than one man’s opinion
So let me understand clearly. “Inalienable rights” must be bestowed by God, otherwise they aren’t inalienable? Couldn’t it just be that we are born with them? Perhaps they are bestowed by “our very nature”? Are you sure there’s just no other way to claim inalienable rights for people?
Besides, saying that they are bestowed by God isn’t the iron-clad reasoning you suggest. Many people don’t believe in God. Others wonder which God you’re talking about. Plus, ideas about God and what He wants do tend to vary over time.
So Scott doesn’t know the source of his morality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 1521 hrs
Couldn’t it just be that we are born with them?
Clearly we are not born with any rights outside of those that other people offer us (speaking secularly of course). We have no concept of rights, nor any ability to realize them if we did.
Perhaps they are bestowed by “our very nature”?
Also obviously wrong. Most people on earth have very few rights at all. If they are “our nature” then clearly Americans have more rights than they deserve… we are far outside the norm. Perhaps we should shed some rights to become more in line with “our nature”. I guess Barack is way ahead on THAT line of thinking.
Besides, saying that they are bestowed by God isn’t the iron-clad reasoning you suggest.
They are not bestowed by God, but rather secured by people through limited government that derives it’s power from the consent of those people.
Plus, ideas about God and what He wants do tend to vary over time.
... but ideas about what OUR inalienable rights are do not. Perhaps the enaction of those rights has broadened and been strengthened, but the basic idea remains the same. If basic human rights are not endowed by our Creator, then they are, as I said, nothing more than cultural ideals,,, certainly not worth spreading to other people. After all, multiculturalism would tell us that we need to be accepting of those other beliefs. No more liberal babble about “human rights”. There clearly are none… according to secular values. The Chinese or North Korean system is equally as valid as ours. There is no American exceptionalism under the modern secular plan…. but there is a wall separating government from any who would profess religion, or values based upon it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 2223 hrs
an Atheist theocracy
Is an oxymoron.
Atheist: One who disbelieves in God or deities.
Agnostic: One who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or deities.
I’ve never seen agnostics pushing their position through legislation. It is some atheists who intend on forcing their beliefs upon others through the force of law. I’d place them far closer to a theocratic movement than anything else. The freedom from religion pinheads are almost puritanical in their demands.
Atheism is, after all, a scientifically unproven belief… just like religion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 10, 2010 at 2234 hrs
Perhaps they are bestowed by ?our very nature??
Also obviously wrong. Most people on earth have very few rights at all. If they are ?our nature? then clearly
Same argument can be made about rights coming from God. Clearly God can’t be bestowing our inalienable rights, for if He had, surely everyone would be realizing those rights.
They are not bestowed by God, but rather secured by people through limited government that derives it?s power from the consent of those people.
So what you’re saying is that these rights just exist because our form of government says they do.
atheists who intend on forcing their beliefs upon others through
Examples?
Atheism is, after all, a scientifically unproven belief
Technically, atheism isn’t a belief at all. But let’s not argue over semantics. Atheism not supported by science? Au contraire. It’s supported by an enormous body of scientific evidence. Or rather, since we’re talking about a non-belief in God, there’s absolutely no evidence for the God theory.
Posted by scott on July 10, 2010 at 2323 hrs
So what you’re saying is that these rights just exist because our form of government says they do.
No, that’s what you are choosing to read,,, but it’s not what I said. It’s not our government that gives us the rights either… they are secured by the people. God does not simply hand them out the way a secular socialist passes out welfare and food stamps. Your human rights must be secured… and once obtained, must be maintained. That is why we devised the system of government that we did. It was a system peculiar to us and found no other place on earth. It was exceptional in it’s beliefs and the fact that’s it’s power came FROM the people rather than it’s power being administered over the people.
atheists who intend on forcing their beliefs upon others through
Examples?
Really? I’m not a big fan of playing dumb, Scott. If you are implying that in your world this does not happen, then we have no basis for a discussion on the matter. There instances where government and non-government atheist groups have attempted to exert influence to erase or ban expressions of religion from the public discourse are legion. If you can’t even admit that it happens then I’m pretty much done with you on that subject. We can argue about the existence of arithmetic, but 2 and 2 will still equal 4.
Technically, atheism isn’t a belief at all.
Ok, prove that there is no God… scientifically. If not, then it is a belief in a theory… nothing more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 11, 2010 at 0009 hrs
they are secured by the people
Through their government. Yes, I understand your point.
God does not simply hand them out the way a secular socialist passes out welfare and food stamps.
You’re not even trying to make a point, you’re just being a dick.
a system peculiar to us and found no other place on earth.
So what you’re saying is that American democracy was the first time in history that people claimed rights that could not be taken away and enshrined them in a form of government, laws or a constitution.
instances where government and non-government atheist groups have attempted to exert influence to erase or ban expressions of religion from the public discourse are legion.
“from the public discourse” is deliberately slippery language. You know perfectly well that what I want is to eliminate religious expressions by the government, not by anyone else. It’s completely typical to conflate these two things, as without doing that you have no argument.
prove that there is no God
You can’t prove a negative, genius. What I can do is point out that there is absolutely no evidence for the God theory.
Posted by scott on July 11, 2010 at 0020 hrs
they are secured by the people
Through their government. Yes, I understand your point.Through the use of government as a tool of the people… that’s where I fear that the argument often runs off the rails. Some folks start thinking that our rights are bestowed from and created by government… and then they start manufacturing new rights. Sometimes the new “rights” actually trample upon the original rights that our nation was created to further. I hope you do understand my point… but I suspect that you won’t.
God does not simply hand them out the way a secular socialist passes out welfare and food stamps.
You’re not even trying to make a point, you’re just being a dick.
I am illustrating a very important difference between the two groups. Secular government has (and I believe usually will) turned into redistributive cradle to grave control OF the people rather than being controlled BY the people.
So what you’re saying is that American democracy was the first time in history that people claimed rights that could not be taken away and enshrined them in a form of government, laws or a constitution.
I believe I was quite clear. I’m saying that our original blue print for government was unique and quite exceptional in it’s beliefs and ideals… preserving the rights given by our creator while offering a loose yet strong framework for future success.
My point is that secularism takes away the strong bond that we have those basic rights. It turns them from inalienable, undeniable human rights into cultural values, arguable ideas, and legal fodder….. rights without a secure and immovable foundation.
You can’t prove a negative, genius. What I can do is point out that there is absolutely no evidence for the God theory.
There is no scientific proof that there is no God, and it is therefor simply your belief. That’s pretty much what everyone has been saying. Agnosticism would be closer to the science of the issue, while Atheism lies closer to the emotional and religious side of the argument.
Proving or denying the existence of God is a whole new argument. There are certainly mathematical proofs of impossibility. There are also scientific laws that can not be broken in this universe and can therefor prove something to be impossible… at least to our knowledge of the natural universe.
I could explain to you the proof that led me from Agnostic to Catholic, but it would be pointless. You are not open to that type of thought. It would be like trying to go car shopping at Pick and Save. You would be unlikely to find what you were looking for if you were unwilling to ever leave that one small retailer and search the broader market.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 11, 2010 at 1125 hrs
Well put, SOL. I’d rather point out the hypocrisies and flaws in Scott’s secular gov’t or Atheist theocracy. The amount of half-witted and poorly argued points here by Scott point to nothing other than confusion and lack of tolerance of Christianity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 11, 2010 at 1258 hrs
It kind of does, though. You use the example of marriage and it’s a pretty good one. The big bad government didn’t “stick their hand in” and wrest marriage away from churches. Religious people wanted marriage to be a civic institution, one that is backed up and reinforced by the law of the land. And for a long time they sure were diggin’ the results. From Taxes to divorce to infidelity, they really liked having the ability to appeal to a court and get some backup. The point is people willingly turned this into a civic institution, a legal arrangement as opposed to a solely religious one.
This statement pre-supposes itself. I was never taught that religious folk asked to have a bunch of laws passed that supported religious marriage and suppressed others from those laws either in public school or Sunday School. Until 20-30 years ago, there was only one definition of marriage: Union of one man and one woman in holy matrimony. I bet there would indeed be a civil union law equating marriage if the bill had asked for that much. I know everyone that I know who voted against it would have voted for a secular union of same sex couples with all secular rights given to married couples.
You know perfectly well that what I want is to eliminate religious expressions by the government, not by anyone else.
There is a big difference between Government setting up a law to favor one or more religions and a member of Government saying something that expresses a personal religious context. If no single member of Government could express an opinion then little could possibly ever get done. Many members have a religious background. Their opinions will usually be colored by their beliefs. Your original criticism of Obama shows exactly how far your anti-religion goes and thought that far out is not in the least tolerant. Analyze your thoughts and comments for a moment.
Scott, do you really believe you are religiously tolerant? (Regretting that a public figure prayed for our troops and wanting no expression of religion by any representative of our Government is not tolerant.) Regardless of the founding father’s beliefs one thing they agreed upon was that religious freedom was to be tolerated. And yes, the US constitution was one of the very first Governmental documents in all of history to give out that kind of right. The freest thinking most open/Democratic Government in history in Athens Greece, still killed or banished heretics, had slaves, and gave women no voice save as virgin oracles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 0953 hrs
Regardless of the founding father’s beliefs one thing they agreed upon was that religious freedom was to be tolerated.
I wonder how religious freedom would work out for everyone if a religious group wanted to build a mosque in West Bend?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2010 at 1210 hrs
I wonder how religious freedom would work out for everyone if a religious group wanted to build a mosque in West Bend?
I imagine it would work out fine right up until terrorists started using it as a base… What, that wouldn’t happen, or do only you get to stereotype Pat? There are hundreds of Mosques in the US, including 14 in Wisconsin. What do you think would happen?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2010 at 0749 hrs
What do you think would happen?
There would be a mighty wind blowing on some blogs and in some churches.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2010 at 1159 hrs
And the perfect place to test these arguments would be that parcel of land in New Berlin where homeowners used their torches and pitchforks to kill that affordable housing project. The developer should totally propose a mosque for the site. Then we can find out if Charlie Sykes’ listeners harbor more prejudice and irrational fear towards Muslims or people who make less than $35k a year.
Frankly, I think that’s a tough call.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 15, 2010 at 1236 hrs
I’m curious to know from you, Tuerqas, what you think would happen?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2010 at 1330 hrs
Do you think “Smeety” truly believes Christianity teaches a true history?
Gotta love when one of our public school instructors throws out garbage like this…
Gotta love when Smeety resorts to incorrect assumptions because he/she has no valid reply.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2010 at 1404 hrs
It’s not incorrect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2010 at 1433 hrs
It’s not incorrect.
That may be the case. In fact, I made the possibly incorrect assumption that you were referring to me as a public school instructor. You may have been speaking in generalities or in reference to a comment made by a public school instructor I am not familiar with. If so, I apologize.
As for the rest of this conversation, I am thankful that this blog reminds me that the USA (or Wisconsin?) is a scary place full of people who are not into critical thought or education. That’s good to remember. The case against patriotism has gained momentum…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 15, 2010 at 1440 hrs
I guess things could have changed there since I last lived there(The school certainly had), but none of the friends I had, including part of the Emmaus Bible Church congregation, would have cared one bit. A person with religion needs some place to pray and gather with others of the same faith.
Besides that, the Muslim faith is the PC protected faith, just like blacks are the PC protected race, though Hispanics are coming on strong. What leg does any American have to stand on to protest a Mosque being built? No law and no public support. You’d look like an inbred, red neck, bigoted, Jackass.
Really, even if you cared, how would you block a Mosque from being built outside zoning or something obscurely illegal? I don’t think anything (at least referring to your inference that there would be resistance) would happen, outside of the Mosque being built. there may be scattered whining, complaining, and fearmongering…kind of like a Wal-Mart.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 16, 2010 at 1202 hrs
Total Entries: 19652
Total Comments: 129807
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 08:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/10/2012 11:00 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 107
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/10/2012 11:57 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).