User Profile
Search
Blog Viewer
The red corner
Sunday, December 18 2011 - 08:47 PM Persevere.. (Please note that the following type of comment posts will be deleted from this thread: those containing childish or otherwise offensive material; those containing cut-and-pasted material that exceed fifty-percent of their total content; and those containing video clips regardless of whether or not they might be accompanied by any amount of original writings [the embedding of URLs or “hotlinks” within comment posts which serve to direct readers to video clips will be accepted provided that all such posts also contain original writings of no fewer than fifty words.]
America: A secular, democratic republic
Within his quickly archived thread entitled “NATIVITY IN TEXAS UNDER ATTACK [12.15.11],” avbornbred asked: “If the United States is not a Christian nation, then what is it?”
The United States is a secular, democratic republic. As such and as per it’s Constitution’s Establishment Clause which expressly forbids the official establishment of one religion over all others, the US is anything but a Christian nation. Unlike the Iranian government which was able to have officially declared Iran to be an Islamic nation or, say, the Israeli government which was able to have officially declared Israel to be a Jewish nation, the US government is legally devoid of the ability to officially declare the US to be a Christian nation nor a nation of any other religion.
avbornbred: “Besides a county free of tyranny and kings, what was the country formed upon?”
Although a thorough response to that question lies well beyond the limited nature of this post, an admittedly simplified answer is that the US – the US Constitution – was formed upon the basic principles of Classical Liberalism as set forth by the likes of Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Francois Voltaire and David Hume. Classical Liberalism sets forth the protection of human liberty by way of the protection of such things as property rights and of the right of the individual to the benefits of his or her labor power. The short of it all is that this nation’s founding had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, to study not only the Constitution but also the personal beliefs of the majority of the key founding fathers is to know that, if anything, the US was founded, in part, upon the principle of freedom from religion rather than upon any type of religious principles.
avbornbred: “As I seem to recall, when the president of the United States is sworn into office, he places his right hand on a Bible (a Christian book, in case you did not know) and swears his oath to office.”
Yes they do, but that practice does not begin to suggest that our founders did not intend for there to be a separation between church and state. After all, the Constitution does not stipulate that presidents or any other government officials place a hand upon a bible nor to recite the phrase “so help me ‘God’.” In fact, the exact opposite is the case because the portions of the US Constitution having to do with oaths of political office are of an utterly secular nature and, accordingly, are evidence of the fact that America’s founders did indeed intend for there to be a clear and distinct separation between church and state.
Article II, section I of the US Constitution reads as follows:
“Before he enters upon the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”
Therefore, there is absolutely nothing within the Constitution’s Article II, Section I that requires oath-takers to take their oaths upon a bible.
The reason behind what has become the tradition of oath-takers swearing upon a bible has to do with George Washington having been sworn in as President of the United States within the state of New York whose then-state constitution required that office holders swear their oaths on a bible. (As an aside, the federal officials responsible for Washington’s swearing-in ceremony were unaware of New York’s law vis-a vis the use of a bible during such ceremonies and were forced to scurry-about at the last moment in search of a bible.) The reason for what has become the tradition of oath-takers stating “So help me ‘God’” at the end of their oaths has only to do with the fact that Washington simply ad-libbed “So help me God” at the end of his oath of office.
avbornbread: “As for far-right Christian fundamentalists, they have made statements condemning homosexuality. But they are not rounding up gays and killing them.”
No they are not. Then again, the United States is not a Christian nation. Were it a Christian nation, then it is safe to assume that an Ayatollah Khomeini-like head-of-state and those who would surround him would see to the execution of not only LBGT peoples but also Marxists, atheists and other freethinkers.
avbornbred: I still don’t understand how the left says we are not a Christian nation when every couple of blocks, even here in the Antelope Valley, there is a Christian church. I guess they are just structures and that people don’t go to those churches to worship and practice their Christian religious beliefs.”
First of all, the fact that the United States is not a Christian nation is not something that is given to partisan politics. Reasonable political conservatives are no less likely to recognize the secular nature of the American political state than are political progressives. Secondly, yes, there seems to be a Christian church located within “every couple of blocks” throughout the United States. Yet so too does there seem to be a fast “food” outlet located within every couple of blocks throughout the United States. But does that fact mean to suggest that the US is officially a fast “food” nation? Well, as much as the extremely high prevalence of fast “food” diets would seem to intimate otherwise, no, it is not. And the same holds true with respect to Christianity; were there to be a Christian church on each and every block in America, and were each and every American also a Christian, America still would not be a Christian nation.
avbornbred: “There are more churches, even more Islamic mosques than atheist structures.”
Beyond the obvious question of “What is it that constitutes “an atheist structure” (the “STAPLES Center” and such?), what of the number of churches in the United States? I mean, if one day the number of Islamic mosques within the US were to surpass its total number of churches, the likes of avbornbred would not likely conclude that “the US is now an Islamic nation,” no?
avbornbred: “When you add the number of religious structures of [Christianity and] all other religions, you really do see that America is a land of religion.”
Indeed it is. And, as Ray Cunneff mentioned within avbornbred’s original thread, that religious diversity is a manifestation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause rather than of anything related to Christianity itself. For it is abundantly obvious that, were this to be an officially sanctioned Christian nation as is the case in Iran, that diversity would not exist.
Notes:
* Ironically, the bible used during George Washington’s swearing-in ceremony was a Masonic bible that came to be secured from a nearby Masonic Lodge literally minutes before Washington was to have been sworn in. So, in keeping with tradition, perhaps a Masonic bible should always be used for such ceremonies ;-)
Guy..
Thank you.)
roxi says...
Cyber: "…Upon ratification of the United States Constitution which protects the religious freedoms of all people by way of rejecting the establishment of an officially recognized religion, yes, people were able to come to America without fear of religious persecution. But that certainly was not the case prior to said ratification (read: The Salem witch hunts and the like). "
________________________
Rejecting the establishment of an officially recognized religion is the key sentence here, and one that has been proven over and over again, as although there were Puritans who fled England at that time for their oppressed ‘state’ under the Anglican Church, there were also those who chose to try and enforce their beliefs on others. They became the new oppressors of the Colonies – hence: Religious Persecution.
It is a very simple concept, but an issue that has never been accepted by some, -similar to the issue of slavery – which is really POWER and domination over others. We have a sordid history in this country, full of prejudices-and efforts to oppress.
Either we accept and respect our neighbor’s beliefs, and allow them to live which ever what they choose. I refuse to address the alternative.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.”
— letter to John Adams, April 11th, 1823
Jefferson Bible the Library of Congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
roxi: “…there were also those [Pilgrims and Puritans] who chose to try to enforce their beliefs on others. They became the new oppressors of the colonies…”
Indeed. In fact, from the time of the first arrival of Europeans to what would later become the United States, religion/superstition has forever been a truncheon, wielded in order to suppress, discriminate and murder the foreign, the “heretic,” the indigenous/“heathens” and the freethinker who, accordingly, simply refuse to accept such hate-filled imbecility. Additionally, although it is quite true that the majority of colonists and early Americans were adherents to Christianity, the fierce battles between a number of Protestant offshoots and, still worse, the near-wars between various Protestant and Catholic outfits, present us with a distinct and inevitable contradiction to the widespread yet utterly false notion that the United States has always been a society given to religious freedom.
Persevere..
Guy..
( send private message )
roxi says...
Cyber: “…Additionally, although it is quite true that the majority of colonists and early Americans were adherents to Christianity, the fierce battles between a number of Protestant offshoots and, still worse, the near-wars between various Protestant and Catholic outfits, present us with a distinct and inevitable contradiction to the widespread yet utterly false notion that the United States has always been a society given to religious freedom.”
________________________________
Indeed, the Christian warriors of that day, as the one’s of this era seem to be very ‘war-like’.
Hence, “Onward Christian Soldiers” and the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” :
“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.”
Considering the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and now the likes of Darth Chaney frothing at the mouth to start a war in Iran – I’d say their only solution to conflict is to kill someone for it.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
To be sure, roxi. The problem with the tidy narrative presented by avbornbred – that America has always been a melting pot in which people of all faiths have been welcomed with opened arms – is that it is a myth. The true story about religion during the early days of America is an often coarse, frequently bewildering and all too often violent story which school textbooks either gloss over or completely ignore.
Respecting the arrival of the Puritans and the Pilgrims, yes, as avbornbred made mention of, their migration was in fact made in direct response to the religious oppression that they suffered in England and other parts of Europe. But, like their European counterparts, neither the Puritans or the Pilgrims were tolerant of superstitious beliefs that differed from their own superstitious beliefs. Neither of them accepted any amount of dissenting views, either religious or political. In fact, they were even given to banishing and murdering members of their own orders who veered even in the slightest from what it was that they were expected to believe. So it should be of little wonder that Puritan “fathers” saw to not only the “stoning” of “witches” but also to the hanging of those who chose to adhere to much less dogmatic Christian sects such as the Quakers.
It is also the case that these “good” Christians lorded over the law-making processes in many if not all of the thirteen colonies. Banning non-Chrsitians from the holding of public offices, and requiring the Christians who were elected to public office to swear an oath which affirmed a belief in the “Trinity” was the norm.
And so it was precisely because of that sort of domestic sociopolitical backdrop that America’s founders the likes of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine were careful to establish a separation between church and state while establishing the United States of America. In other words, although our founders certainly had the Church of England in mind while penning the US Constitution and Bill of rights, their immediate concern was the then-homegrown batch of violent and controlling religious bigots.
Persevere..
Guy..
( send private message )
RealSteve says...
@Guy
And yet those words and actions “And so it was precisely because of that sort of domestic sociopolitical backdrop that America’s founders the likes of Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine were careful to establish a separation between church and state while establishing the United States of America” appear nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The first mention of the wall of separation of State and Church was by Jefferson in his “Letter to the Danbury Baptists”, 1802.
Or how about:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
Cyber: "…Neither of them accepted any amount of dissenting views, either religious or political. In fact, they were even given to banishing and murdering members of their own orders who veered even in the slightest from what it was that they were expected to believe. "
_______________________________
To be sure, nothing has changed in the world of Evangelicals….
In the LATimes today, there’s an article about the ‘split’ of a 3-way tie between the who’s-who of true-blue Evangelicals running for nomination for Prez: Perry, Santorum and Bachmann.
Chuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Center endorsed Santorum. He and Bob Vander Plaats, president helped Mike Huckabee pull off a win in the 2008 win, citing support for Santorum for his antiabortion and anti-gay-marriage views.
Looks like that was a good thing Hurley did…otherwise:
Quote:
“…Rumors have swirled for weeks about heated deliberations at the Family Leader board meetings; when Hurley announced his endorsement, he said a friend had threatened to “burn Bob’s body, drag it through the streets and hang it from a bridge” if Vander Plaats didn’t endorse the right candidate. "
Luv the Family Values theme….
source: GOP’s multiple choices test Iowa/latimes.com
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@roxi
The Social Conservative wing of the Republican party is really up shit creek right now. They have Michael Bachmann who is crazy, Rick Santorum who is not much better and Rick Perry who is dumb as a box of rocks and would be eaten alive by Obama during a general campaign.
The SC’s really don’t like Mormons, they want someone who will go all out to the ban all abortions, and someone to open the war with Gays again (never mind that that war is over).
The really head exploding stuff is yet to happen over in the R party though. When Ron Paul wins Iowa, you are going to see heads exploding.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
But the proverbial fly in the ointment, Steve, is that, in its original form, Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence did not employ the term “creator.” It read as follows: “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienable, among which the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” This “creator” nonsense was later added to the DOI by certain Christian elements of the US congress.
So, Steve, would you care to acknowledge the fact that you are mistaken?
Answer: Of course not.
Good day..
Persevere..
Guy..
( send private message )
RealSteve says...
@Guy
Site your source for your claim about that “original form” and I will consider. But the fact is the signed document, which is what counts by the way in the included the text given, not some draft that was discarded. What elements are you referring to by the way? It was a Constitutional convention by the way, held in Philadelphia. So …Virginians, Carolina, the Boston and other NE delegations were mostly Calvinist who would have been entirely comfortable with the final words.
Even more facts, in the mid 1700’s the use of Creator and God references were very common in public documents and discourse. The idea of anyone being a public figure and being an open atheist or an agnostic in the 1700’s is laughable on face value, just would not happen. The pretense by these men of being nothing but God Fearing was required to be elected by mostly uneducated and fundamentalist rural population is a given.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
Article. VI. – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and
of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States.
—U.S. Constitution
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@Guy
I did find a rather long situation which examines the question, here.
I’d hardly call Franklin and Adams rabid Christians and the effort change the wording to add Creator is attributed to them not Jefferson, although the analysis shows changes were made in his hand but stylistically not in his words.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@roxi
I agree with you, but at the same time the far left wants to stifle free speech in the public square that carries religious connotation. I’m not for that ether.
I’m probably more orginalist in this matter, with the public square being a place open to speech and expression of ideas open to all forms of religion and those that wish to express no religion.
I think the term is Freedom Of and “From” religion and zealots of all kinds…leave me the hell alone.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
12/21/11 – 05:13 PM
RealSteve says…
@roxi
The Social Conservative wing of the Republican party is really up shit creek right now.
______________________
The Teahadist Evangelists seem to have quite a hold on Boehner, and his final decision to uphold his Oath of Office by supporting the Corporations’ XL Pipe Line, instead of supporting 160 MILLION people working in this country by voting against the Middle class tax break yesterday.
Perhaps some Gop’s HOPE that the far-right has lost their influence….as you say on the Right, Hope Don’t Work……
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@roxi
The argument is not over the XL pipe line, it’s over a 2 moth extension to the tax or a 12 month extension. The Senate bill that was approved includes pipeline but only has a 2 month extension.
But Obama does not care about creating 20,000 new American jobs to build the pipe line or the 120,000 indirect jobs, he only cares about placating the environmental whack job wing of his party.
But you are right, Congressional Republicans have stepped into this one “big time”, even if the two months is only worth $168 to every working person, not the $1000+ a full 12 month extension would have allowed people to keep instead of giving to the Federal government.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
@RS: NAME one instance where the left has indicated that they want to stifle “free speech” in a public square. Regarding OWS protests, I beg to hear this one.
RS: “…I agree with you, but at the same time the far left wants to stifle free speech in the public square that carries religious connotation. I’m not for that ether.”
Since the definition of ‘free speech’ has been corrupted by SCOTUS, granting Personhood status for Corporations (translated via $$ to buy our elections); AND by certain elected officials who spew ignorant and defamatory slurs against their enemies – just what IS free-speech today?
Slander is defamation by speaking, and libel is defamation by means of writing…
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@roxi
Dozens of ACLU suits to stop nativity scenes on public property. If those displays are open to all, like in Santa Monica then things should be fine.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@roxi
So if you don’t like corporations having a voice in public elections, are you fine with pulling the ability of Unions through their contributions effecting elections? I good with banning corporate PACS as long as Union dues use for similar PACS are also banned.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@roxi
The current bill from the Senate includes making the President make a decision now on the XL pipeline.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
A 2-month extension would’ve ensured those on unemployment, those working = WHO PAY TAXES BTW, and who are flesh & blood citizens — not Mr. Corporate Person, Inc. …. an agreement for a temporary arrangement was too much to ask of the hateful, revengeful Teahadists who are owned by Grover Neiquest, INc.
The Big House couldn’t pull their heads out of their arses and actually come up with a compromise, like the Senate did.
Time to throw the whiners to the LIons….
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
RS & Roxi
Just because the ACLU files suit doesn’t mean they have the public support. I disagree with more than 95% of their suits. But I support the fact that they challenge things and keep the Supreme Court on their toes. The US Constitution is very flexible. But that means at any given time the interpretation can go left or right.
As an American, a non Christian and border-line atheist/agnostic, I have never had a problem with Christmas theme displays on public property so long as other groups also have the same opportunity. I think the situation in Santa Monica caught everybody off guard because nobody ever tried to dislodge the status quo (that being the nativity scenes). I think that next year city officials will make sure that everybody gets a fair shake.
As far as the Constitutionality of such issues, as long as the government is not the ones placing the religious (nativity scenes) on their property, but have just issued permits for the general public—there’s no violation.
But, the ACLU can take it to court and you might have some judges (even eventually the Supreme Court) side with them. That’s always the gamble. Just like previously mentioned ruling that corporations are people.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
RS: "…I good with banning corporate PACS as long as Union dues use for similar PACS are also banned. "
I would’ve been for this concept, if it weren’t for the Teahadists efforts in WI, IN, OH and other states to BUST the Unions. As you know, by busting up the Unions – they lose their membership and political clout. Corporate Persons, Inc. will never lose their financial interests, nor will their ‘members’ die who pay into their coffers.
So no – I do not agree.
Corporate Personhood must be amended.
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
RS
You are correct. Corporations should be banned and most certainly, labor unions should be banned from making contributions. None-of-which is in the public interest. Unions have gone way beyond what their intended purpose should be.
(lest you feel I’m an anti-union busting conservative) I was a member of a union for 25 years. I was a shop steward. I (just prior to my retirement) was working with the Teamsters to be our bargaining unit.)
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@roxi
I’d probably argue that we need some Wis. style reform of our State Union workers in CA. Way over paid and way too generous of retirement packages are bankrupting the state.
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
RS
There was a time that civil service jobs ALWAYS paid less than private sector. The only thing they had to offer was job security and a steady pay check and decent (not abusive) benefit package.
Now civil service jobs pay way more than private sector and have Cadillac benefit package.
Perhaps the time has come to gut civil service and go with outside contracting.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@AVTC
Which Civil Service? State or Federal?
The Federal folks have a decent but not extravagant retirement package and is well deserved.
State workers not so much and in my view vastly over paid and vastly robbing tax payers. Most of that not so much is due to the power State worker Unions exert over the Democrats in the Assembly which are bought and paid for by Union dues.
I’d vote for an initiative that ended some of the worst of the worst abuses of state employee pension plans.
(
send private message
)
RealSteve says...
@AVTC
We agree then.
I beleive in paying workers a fair wage, but fair as standard is based on what the private sector gets. Right now CA state workers are getting one of the best platinum plated retirement programs that exists. We Tax payers can’t afford to pay for those benefits any longer.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
@AVTC, apparently the City of Santa Monica resorted to a Lottery system, not a 1st come-1st serve, as previously reported.
( send private message )
roxi says...
2/21/11 – 06:49 PM
RealSteve says…
@roxi
I’d probably argue that we need some Wis. style reform of our State Union workers in CA. Way over paid and way too generous of retirement packages are bankrupting the state.
_____________
You would.
Take collective bargaining, OSHA, and other protective oversights out of the mix, and you’ll be paying even more in state taxes via lawsuits for injuries caused by lack of oversight.
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
Roxi
No one’s saying to cut back OSHA or any safety related issues. It’s just that state worker’s salary (due to management caving in to the powerful unions) have far exceeded private sector. That’s not right. Civil service\public service – the operative word here is ‘service.’ In lieu of large wages, we who work public service are, in fact, serving. That doesn’t mean free or slave labor—but it does me service which is to some extent volunteerism—which extends to the difference in pay between public workers and private sector workers.
Let’s be clear—when you work for the government—you’re working for the taxpayers. But also bear in mind—I’m not really pointing the finger at the lower level workers—I’m mainly referring to upper management. Rank and file are probably where they should be (in terms of wages)
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
As far as Santa Monica-I think they did it right. They may have to fine tune it next year, because I’m sure religion will make a concerted effort to somehow game the system.
( send private message )
RealSteve says...
@roxi
Well without corporations for you to tax, how would we as a society pay for the utopian society that you seek?
Very few jobs created by you lefty loons.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
As the title of the website that you link to reveals, RealSteve, “Jefferson’s Original Declaration of Independence Did Not Use the Word ’Creator.”
As for the oft-referred to “possibility” of Thomas Jefferson having been the one that added the word “creator” to the Declaration of Independence, it is difficult if not impossible to imagine that the deist – Thomas Jefferson – would have added that bit of ignorance – especially in light of his having written the following:
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” —Thomas Jefferson, excerpted from a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, 1787
As a deist, Thomas Jefferson rejected the mysticism and superstition of Christianity and all ignorance-centered belief systems. He wrote extensively with respect to the ridiculous nature of Christianity; having assembled the Jefferson Bible by way of removing the Bible’s many promotions of violence, miracles and other such imbecilities and arriving at what he deemed to be the moral philosophy that Christ attempted to convey.
So despite the efforts of Christian revisionists to rewrite American history in order to make it appear as though Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, there is absolutely nothing about his writings that would suggest such nonsense.
Additionally, even if Thomas Jefferson had been a Christian, and even if his Declaration of Independence were to make mention of the mythical and maniacal monster in the sky, the Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. Unlike the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (neither of which refer to “god” or a “creator”), the Declaration of Independence sets forth no number of governing principles. Its only purpose was to make a case for severing the legal ties that then existed between Great Britain and the American colonies; a goal that once achieved saw an end to the Declaration’s purpose.
In any event, though, the reality-grounded Thomas Jefferson sure as hell did not enter the word “creator” into the Declaration of Independence, for he was anything but a Christian/believer in fairy-tales.
Good day..
Persevere..
Guy..
( send private message )
RealSteve says...
@guy
Project much?
Thomas Jefferson was a creative thinker for sure, but he was also a product of his times.
For what Jefferson really thought about Jesus and religion in general, look no further than the http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/05/local/me-beliefs5. I site a LA Times article, but there are others.
To say that Jefferson was not a Christian in the view of the modern Evangelical Thumper, probably true, but to say he did not beleive in a higher creator and for that matter something special about Jesus the man, hardly true.
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
Guy
You’re right on. Most of the educated in early America were (at best) christian (with a small ‘c’) Like Jefferson and like most of Christ’s original followers, did not view him (nor he himself) as a God. Merely a teacher.
I have no problems with Christ’s philosophy. Like any teacher, you incorporate those things into your life that mean something to you. We’ve all had great teachers in our lives. Nothing wrong with incorporating those lessons into your own life.
But the over-the-top shove down your throat preaching that you have today (and since the early church (now known as the Catholic Church)with their evil inquisition, makes one wonder how this is NOT evil. I’m with you Guy.
I understand that in the early days where just about all of the people were ignorant (no formal education) and were rather lawless, that you had to impose fear (something they understood) to get them to act with civility (something which is lacking by some on this site.
But, today, with all our education and all the historical documents that have been uncovered (going back to the early Mesopotamia) it makes you wonder how they can still stick with this fantasy.They probably still believe in Santa Clause (OK, I went to far with that last line—sorry ’bout that.)
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
Cybertariat:“As a deist, Thomas Jefferson rejected the mysticism and superstition of Christianity and all ignorance-centered belief systems.”
It would be a stretch to refer to Christianity as “ignorance centered” when you take an honest look at all of the advancements that have come under Christianity — everything from Western medicine all the way down to the very keyboard you’re typing on. No, not everything done in the name of Christianity has been for the good, but please show me another society that is as technologically, scientifically and medically advanced as the West is.
The very first universities in Europe were built maintained and ran by the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. Notre Dame. It was in the Catholic universities that some of the first real studies of biology originated. Oxford, England’s flagship university, started off as a Catholic University before the Reformation. Here in America, Princeton University was closely affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, Yale and Harvard were both founded by Congregationalist ministers.
Also, Guy, to be a Deist does not make one not a Christian. There are people who identify with Christianity on a cultural level but who theologically hold to deism. These people celebrate Christian holidays and may even attend church, but do not hue to specific denominational doctrine. Deists still believe in a Creator/God/Higher Being, they just don’t believe it has any influence in everyday affairs.
(
send private message
)
Grumpy says...
I’m always ambivalent about entering into religious discussions but hey, it’s too cold & windy for yard work today :-)
I agree it’s probably not entirely accurate to say Christianity – or any religion – is “ignorance centered” but I can’t agree it is because Christianity per se had something to do with the invention of computers.
I am more taken with the paradoxical fact that there is nothing unusual about highly intelligent & educated people, most specifically those who understand, work with and are 100% grounded in the immutable, observable and testable facts of the physical universe, yet still hold firm belief in the supernatural aspects of religion.
To me this shows that humans are adept at compartmentalizing our thinking processes, simultaneously accepting something as fact in one part of the brain and yet believing it not fact in another.
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
Matt
A lot of what you mention is true. But the Church has held back scientific advancements for a long long time because science (fact) was in conflict with church dogma.
I really can’t say that organized Christianity has been a benefit to mankind over all. Though on an individual level the benefits may have been acceptable.
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
True, James. I would agree that the church as a political organisation held back some advances (specifically thinking of Galileo) but the religion of Christianity itself did not! In fact, if you delve deep into some of Galileo’s penned works, you’ll find that his faith motivated him to investigate the natural world and to postulate astronomical theories that were unorthodox for his time. Another brilliant scientist that comes to mind is Sir Francis Bacon, who was also deeply motivated by his faith to make scientific observations.
Despite his politicised persecution by the church hierarchy, Galileo remained a faithful and ardent Catholic until his passing. That is not only rich in philosophical terms, but also very telling!
(
send private message
)
mattkeltner says...
Grumpy: “I agree it’s probably not entirely accurate to say Christianity – or any religion – is “ignorance centered” but I can’t agree it is because Christianity per se had something to do with the invention of computers.”
Not directly, of course! And I wasn’t trying to imply otherwise, but the very technology we use at our fingertips is a Western phenomena.
If you look at the history of a given area or space, you look at it as a sequence of events. For example, it is not possible to look at the People’s Republic of China in historical terms and deliberately omit that Confucianism had anything to do with the development of Chinese thinking with regard to communal living, etc.
History is, for better or worse, progressive and sequential with one era influencing another.
Of course, we’re reluctant to think that Snake-holding, hollaring Pentecostals in the mountains of West Virginia had anything to do with Apple Computers and Steve Jobs, but that’s not how you look at things sequentially.
(
send private message
)
avbornbred says...
How has the church held back on science? That is some pretty good liberal spin.
No one has prohibitied science from proceeding forward. The church has not stood in the way of science, and has only brought forward debate on issues.
Science cannot explain many things in the Bible which some refer to as fantasy or mythology. However, science still has not disproved many of the events in the Bible.
When it comes to science, many will sway their views or opinions by manipulation of facts as in the Global Warming arena. Critics of Christianity will also manipulate issues in attempts to disprove the Bible.
(
send private message
)
Grumpy says...
It isn’t so much that the Church is anti-science, it’s just that religious dogma is just that, dogma, an incontrovertible truth laid down by someone. And when, as in the Galileo case, that someone didn’t have all the facts and the dogma becomes directly challenged by demonstrable truth, well, then you have the immovable object meeting the irresistible force. Big clash.
The reality is that any religion that incorporates within its dogma “incontrovertible truths” that don’t square with what later becomes known through scientific inquiry is bound to have a prickly relationship with the scientific world. When this happens either the religion has to modify the dogma or, as is the case with stories of past “miracles”, ignore the science and pretend all is well.
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
Many were condemned as heretics for said. To some degree dogma still prevails in research (not from the church) but from established science dogma. Those who rock the boat, are frequently cut off from research grants.
Back to the topic, the early church was very quick to murder anybody they felt was a heretic. No trial, no chance to defend yourself.
Current religious organizations are no longer that fanatic. But the early church was terrible when it came to any new ideas. Hence why many secret societies were created. That was the only way science and alternative teachings could take place.
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
AVTC: “…Current religious organizations are no longer that fanatic.”
AVtc: Persecution of non-believers is still alive & well in Iowa!
“Looks like that was a good thing Hurley did…otherwise:
Quote:
“…Rumors have swirled for weeks about heated deliberations at the Family Leader board meetings; when Hurley announced his endorsement, he said a friend had threatened to “burn Bob’s body, drag it through the streets and hang it from a bridge” if Vander Plaats didn’t endorse the right candidate. "
___________________
Sounds pretty Radical to me….now they’re threatening to drag white boys thru the town square and public hangin’s, with guns drawn, if they don’t endorse the proper chosen one. Wonder if their wives were prepared to bleach the white sheets for the occasion?
(
send private message
)
roxi says...
No, there aren’t any perfect communities, but there are those within a community who could try harder to make one whole, instead of publishing division and animosity.
( send private message )
avbornbred says...
Liberalism back in the 1800th century was a far cry from what Libs proclaim today.
As for CYBERGUYS comments about how the Puritans and Pilgrims were not tolerant of others, I would agree. You mentioned the stoning of Witches. But you also failed to mention the Catholics and their abilitiy to convert Native Americana and tribes from South America, Central America, and throughout North America. Trying to find a true Puritan Church today is not easy. Christianity grew as more denominations arrived in the “New World.” That is why there are so many different Christian Denominations today in our country.
As for referring to the Mythical Being in the sky, that is the freedom of CHOICE God has given everyone. If you chose not to believe, that is your right in the eyes of God. For those of who do believe in religions of our choice, which happens to be the majority of people in the world today, that is our right.
Is religion perfect, no it is not. Look at the Westboro Baptists Church, a church most other Babtists want no affiliation with. Look at Islam and it’s brutality. And yes, I never agreed with Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson on all issues and views. The fact is, Christian Churches are in every community in our country. It would be very hard to find a town or city that does not have a single Christian Church standing, and with members.
(
send private message
)
avbornbred says...
As for intolerance. Just look at todays liberal movement towards Christianity. While the Left finds issues like Prop 8 as liberal intolerance from Christianity, I guess if you are gay, that is a lack of tolenrance from the far right. But then again, look at how many Christian Churches have accepted gay members and gay clergy.
( send private message )
AV Town Crier says...
AVB
Well put. If everybody dealt with their religious beliefs as you have stated, we wouldn’t have a lot of the controversy that we have. It is indeed a personal choice. Live and let live, that is the American way. The problem comes that in a lot (not all) churches the minister uses the power of the pulpit to control the flock. This kind of goes against free thinking. Then again (as stated on other blog posts) political party’s (as well as union members) use there positions to control people. And the people allow it. GOD gave you free will and the power to learn. Use it as GOD intended it. Be free! Be happy.
(
send private message
)
avbornbred says...
AVTC: Again, well put.
People who HATE religion, don’t understand there is a curve in how the majority of churches allow for free thinking while a small minority developed into almost a cult. The Left tends to think all Christian churches are cults.
(
send private message
)
AV Town Crier says...
AVB
it seems a lot of the ‘lefties’ are controlled by dogma and their leaders. It seems free thinking individuals are in short supply (I consider myself an endangered species)
( send private message )
roxi says...
12/31/11 – 06:10 PM
avbornbred says…
Liberalism back in the 1800th century was a far cry from what Libs proclaim today.
___________________________
As were the Republicans, especially on the subject of tolerance. Perhaps this is why the current Tea Party has so much influence.
In researching different political parties of that era, I found the “Barnburners and Hunkers”. The Barnburners were the more radical faction of the New York state Democratic Party in the mid 19th century. “They were those who would destroy all banks and corporations, to root out their abuses.1”
(sounds OWS familiar)
The Barnburners opposed expanding the public debt, and the power of the large corporations; they also generally came to oppose the extension of slavery.
Their opponents, the conservative Hunkers, favored state banks, internal improvements, and minimizing the slavery issue.
The Compromise of 1850 temporarily neutralized the issue of slavery and undercut the party’s no-compromise position. Most Barnburners returned to the Democratic party, and the Free Soil Party became dominated by ardent anti-slavery leaders, and eventually merged with the Republican Party.
The Free Soil Party was also a notable third party.
Scroll down to the bottom of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Soil_Party
Check out the list of 3rd parties that have been represented in this country, and currently exist.
So, I don’t think the MSM is accurate when they catalogue Americans as ONLY “Left or Right”.
Apparently, there’s been quite a few Independent thinkers throughout our history, with political views transferring, most of the time via who the candidate is at the time, and our economic status.
(
send private message
)
Cybertariat says...
avbornbred: “[Denver’s] defense took possession and scored on the last minute drives?”
Of course not. It is simply that Denver’s defense has played well enough this year to have covered for Tim Tebow’s many mistakes. In fact, Denver’s defense has scored at least one touchdown during each of the games in which Tebow has started, thereby “keeping the Broncos in the game” despite Tebow’s largely poor performances.
So, yes, Tim Tebow has indeed engineered a number of fourth-quarter-comeback wins, but, thanks to Denver’s defense, he has yet to have to make up for anything worse than a seven point deficit.
Too, as a first-year starting quarterback, many of the defenses that have faced him thus far this year have done so for the first time. Given time, experience and the accumulation of a sufficient amount of game film, however, virtually all opposing defenses will soon have Tim Tebow’s “number” – to the point to where seldom will he be effective. In short, the fact that Tim Tebow is not of starting-nfl-quarterback caliber will soon become abundantly obvious.
Prediction: Tim Tebow will be out of the NFL by the beginning of the 2016-2017 season.
avbornbred: “The kid is being attacked because he is a Christian…”
Nonsense. As far as his being an NFL quarterback is concerned, Tim Tebow is often criticized for the fact that he is a former first round draft pick that has yet to live up to the expectations of a first round draft pick and that he likely never will live up to the expectations of a first round draft pick. Again, he “is at best a journeyman NFL quarterback cut from the same cloth as, say, Doug Flutie, Steve Deberg, or Vince Evans.” It is just that simple. In my opinion, elements within the Broncos’ organization who were responsible for drafting Tebow in the first round of the 2010 NFL draft did so based mainly on his “wholesome” image which, as it relates to a professional athlete, is an utterly meaningless commodity. (read: parents should be their children’s only role models. Professional athletes are, well, professional athletes.)
As far as “Tebow detractors” such as Bill Mayer are concerned, Tim Tebow has been criticized for the fact that he has long used his football career toward the promotion of Christianity. Millions of football fans have forever resented his exhibiting various bible verses on various body parts during the football games in which he has played and for very good reason; save for selected, secular charities, football games are meant to promote football and only football. They are not about the promotion of Christianity nor any other ideology held by individual players.
Think about it: Had I been a professional football player, would society have been supportive of my sporting the words “Religion is the opiate of the masses” on my forehead during the games I played in? No it would not have. Would it have been accepting of my raising a clenched fist while celebrating my on-field accomplishments? No, it would not have been so accepting. And the fact that most Americans and most football fans are Christians means absolutely nothing, for someone is always going to be marginalized by the promotion of Christianity within otherwise secular venues.
To me, most of the Christians who are so very supportive of Tim Tebow couldn’t possibly care any less about the NFL while they are very much concerned with exposing non-believers – even other religionists – to Christianity by any means. To me, they use any venue available to them for the purpose of shoving their beliefs down the throats of those of us who want nothing to do with their belief system. Simply stated, were we interested in adopting their belief system, we would read their bible and/or attend their Churches. But we are not interested in adopting their belief system, and we should not have to be subjected to their belief system within settings in which it does not belong. The promotion of Christianity is something that should be carried out only within the context of Christian churches, Christian schools, Christian media outlets as well as within the homes of individual Christians.
So too has Tim Tebow been criticized for allowing his mother to lie about doctors having urged her to abort him while a fetus. (It may be remembered that, in a typically desperate effort toward the curtailing of reproductive rights, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family sponsored an anti-choice commercial spot during the 2010 Super Bowl in which Pam Tebow strongly suggested that her doctors advised her to abort the fetus which eventually became Tim Tebow.) But, given that Tim Tebow was conceived, gestated and born in the Philippines where abortion is extremely illegal, it is extremely unlikely that any group of Filipino physicians would have advised Pam Tebow to abort her fetus. What is likely is that Pam Tebow is but another lying and manipulative Christian.
Finally. If, as he claims, Tim Tebow is still a virgin, I say – fine. If being a virgin at the age of 24 is something that is important to him, I am quite happy for him, but that fact does not so much as begin to suggest that he is somehow better than those of us who have engaged in premarital sex. In my opinion, for someone like Tim Tebow to remain sexually inactive at the age of 24 is to deny oneself a slice of life that is not only completely natural but also very healthy and thus life-affirming. So I for one find Tebow’s repeated references to his being a virgin to be firmly grounded in arrogance.
So, yeah, if it is Tim Tebow’s intention to continue on with this inappropriate behavior, then may his NFL career come to an end by the end of this very day.
*
Persevere.
Guy.
*
*
*
( send private message )
avbornbred says...
You seem to forget all of the interviews where people were critical of his beliefs. During the Super Bowl, the left went nuts when Tebow made a commercial touting a Focus on the Family view. The Left went nuts and ever since then, the media has targeted him for his failures on the field. Even when he was winning, he had critical reveiws from the press.
I don’t know if Tebow will be a starter next year. If he continues to have poor passing performances in losses, he will become a back up or a utility player. If he wins games, his starting position will be safe. My advice, go to some QB camps and learn how to throw and read a defense.
Calling his mother a liar is a pathetic insult. 25 years ago, who knows what the atmosphere was in the phillipines. Reading about 78,000 abortions in a recent year, is like marijuana being illegal in the United States. To call someone a liar without knowing facts is on your part is based on your prejudicial hatred for Christians in general.
(
send private message
)
Would you like to comment on this blog post? Login to talk back!
Cybertariat says...
After choosing to respond to this thread’s parent post within his thread “NATIVITY IN TEXAS UNDER ATTACK IN TEXAS,” avbornbred wrote:
“When our country was formed, liberalism was a small fraction of a fraction of less than one-percent.” (A reference to my statement that “…the US – the US Constitution – was formed upon the basic principles of Classical Liberalism as set forth by Thomas Paine, Thomas Hobbes, Francois Voltaire and David Hume.”)
In actuality, with their glaring class interests aside, this nation’s founders were a very progressively-minded group of individuals. The three documents which they brought forth (The United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence) are firmly based upon four liberal precepts: 1. The equality of rights and opportunity; 2. Unity within diversity (or “E Pluribus Unum”); 3. The freedom of religion/the freedom from religion; and 4. The political state’s obligation to ensure individual liberty as well as the citizenries collective well-being. Meaning, of course, that America’s founders were very openminded individuals who were concerned with the well-being of the American people; their civil rights and civil liberties as well as with their health, employment and education.
Ergo, the Constitution, Bill of Right, and Declaration of Independence were not only viewed as being extremely liberal for their time, they were outright revolutionary. Ergo, to assert that liberalism had little to nothing to do with the founding of this nation is to reveal a rather high degree of historical ignorance about oneself. Thomas Paine’s book “Common Sense,” as an example, was and remains an extremely liberal publication just as surely as all of Thomas Paine’s writing were well-grounded in Classical Liberalism. Moreover, the simple fact of the matter is that the American revolution rose from the writings of Thomas Paine.
Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain. —Thomas Jefferson.
avbornbred: “The prominent religion in our country was Christianity. When the Constitution was written, specifically in the regards to religion, that is where the confusion is.”
Perhaps avbornbred had intended to write something to the effect of “When the Constitution was written, the predominant religion in our country was Christianity. That is where the confusion is.”
Quite true. Just because Christianity happened to have been representative of the predominant religion at the time of this nation’s founding is not suggestive of America being a Christian nation because it is no such thing.
avbornbred: “Your dig on far-right whack jobs like the Baptist church in Kansas is correct. They are not tolerant, and most Christians would not tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church and do not consider its members to be true Christians.”
Actually, I did not call out the Westboro Baptist Church by name. I have, however, and within avbornbred’s NATIVITY IN TEXAS UNDER ATTACK, called out the whack jobs Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell. Unlike the members of Westboro Baptist, the likes of Falwell and Robertson are quite representative of “true Christians” – mainstream Christians – and are thusly accepted despite their clear lack of tolerance, or is their widespread acceptance perhaps the result of their intolerance? In my opinion, the former flows from the latter, for American society is a homophobic society.
“I warn Orlando [Florida] that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those [gay pride] flags in God’s face if I were you. This is not a message of hate – this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.” —Pat Robertson concerning “Gay Days” at Disneyworld.
That quote speaks to my earlier point that “Were [the US] a Christian nation, then it is safe to assume that an Ayatollah Khomeini-like head-of-state [a Pat Robertson?] and those who would surround him would eventually see to the execution of not only LGBT peoples but also Marxists, atheists and other freethinkers.” After all, were this society to ever get to the point to where the US Constitution will have been so subverted that this secular, democratic republic would be supplanted by a Christian theocracy, then it stands to reason that perhaps hundreds of millions of American Christians would be supportive of killing gay people in the name of thwarting “terrorist bombs…earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly meteor[s].” Far fetched? Perhaps. Then again, we are discussing people who believe there to be or to have been virgin births, “divine” interventions, resurrections, global floods, the parting of a sea and many other such mythical events.
avbornbred: “The recognizing of a religion was brought to the attention because of the persecution many religious groups suffered in England and other parts of Europe.”
Yes, that is it, avbornbred, keep to ignoring the fact that I have proven repeatedly – throughout this discussion – that the US Constitution recognizes no religion. “The recognizing of a religion…” Nonsense.
Had the United States been founded upon Christianity, then the Constitution would clearly make mention of that – but it does no such thing. The Constitution does not say “The United States is a Christian nation,” nor does it say anything that even resembles that. Neither does the United States Constitution mention the words Christian, Christianity, Creator, Bible or God – not so much as one time. In fact, the Constitution makes no mention of religion at all, save for in exclusionary terms. How so? Article 6, section 3 of the US Constitution reads as follows: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” A liberal – indeed radical document for its time. Hardly a recognition of Christianity or any other psychotic belief system.
As for the Constitution having “recognized a religion” [Christianity] because of “the persecution many religious groups suffered in England…” (an obvious reference to the Pilgrims), that is a completely ignorant statement because the Pilgrims did not participate in the writing of the Constitution. Neither were the pilgrims the ones who fought against England. The Pilgrims did in fact escape religious persecution in England but only so that they would be able to practice the very same type of horrible religious persecution here on this land.
Actually, the converse is the reality; America’s founders prohibited the establishment – the official recognition – of a religion, in part, precisely because of the fact that an official state religion is exactly that which leads to officially sanctioned religious persecution.
avbornbred: “Coming to America allowed the freedom of religion for those who did not have that freedom in their old countries.”
Upon ratification of the United States Constitution which protects the religious freedoms of all people by way of rejecting the establishment of an officially recognized religion, yes, people were able to come to America without fear of religious persecution. But that certainly was not the case prior to said ratification (read: The Salem witch hunts and the like).
avbornbred: “As you can see [Cybertariat], your interpretation and mine are very different. Mine is based on historical events, yours is based on liberal-minded thinkers.”
Actually, sir, your interpretation is based upon Christian Revisionism while my “interpretation” is simply historically accurate.
Persevere..
Guy..
( send private message )