Most think founders wanted Christian USA

[RamboLiberal]

Source: USA Today

Most Americans believe the nation's founders wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and people are less likely to say freedom to worship covers religious groups they consider extreme, a poll out today finds.

The survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. In the survey, which is conducted annually by the First Amendment Center, a non-partisan educational group, three out of four people who identify themselves as evangelical or Republican believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. About half of Democrats and independents do.

Most respondents, 58%, say teachers in public schools should be allowed to lead prayers. That is an increase from 2005, when 52% supported teacher-led prayer in public schools.

More people, 43%, say public schools should be allowed to put on Nativity re-enactments with Christian music than in 2005, when 36% did.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-11-amendment_N.htm

[BootinUp]

1. wow.

We are a nation of idiots, truly.

[SCantiGOP]

52. Let's see what they actually said

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
-John Adams

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
-James Madison

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion?
To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
-Thomas Jefferson

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
-Thomas Jefferson

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
-Benjamin Franklin

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
-Thomas Paine

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
-John Adams, U.S. President

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.
-John Adams, U.S. President

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
-John Adams, U.S. President

Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it.
-John Adams, U.S. President

But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.
-John Adams, U.S. President

Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years.
-John Adams, U.S. President

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.
-John Adams, U.S. President

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.
-Benjamin Franklin

Lighthouses are more helpful then churches.
-Benjamin Franklin

Revelation indeed had no weight with me.
-Benjamin Franklin

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-Benjamin Franklin

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
-Benjamin Franklin

Question with boldness even the existance of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

Religions are all alike; founded upon fables and mythologies.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being of His Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
-Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
-James Madison, U.S. President

In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.
-James Madison, U.S. President

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.
-James Madison, U.S. President

Whenever we read the obscene stores, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent 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.
-Thomas Paine, American revolutionary

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-Thomas Paine, American revolutionary

The age of ignorance commenced with the Christian system.
-Thomas Paine, American revolutionary

The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.".
-George Washington, Revolutionary War General and U.S. President

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.
-George Washington, Revolutionary War General and U.S. President

[arewenotdemo]

93. Thanx for the great quotes!

[0007]

110. That sez it all! I'm surprised that one would even bother to

regurgitate such an article.

[Bryn]

118. Dr. D. Kennedy was preaching, preaching

about how our founding fathers wanted USA to be a Christian Nation. I tried to tell Mom that it was a lie to no avail.

Thank you for quotes. I am going to copy and save to email to my freeper family and relatives. Originally they were all democrats but went over to the other side because of those TV preachers told them so!

[MUSTANG_2004]

126. Some of the quotes have problems

There's some that have no real source (i.e. they were used in a book, but no source documents can be found to support it), and some others are out of context:

For example, the John Adams quote "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." is part of this paragraph:
'Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it." ! ! ! But in this exclamati I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell.'

I don't disagree with the fact that many of the founders (particularly the more prominent ones) were not religious, but some of the quotes don't pass the test to be considered valid (or, as in the John Adams quote) are pulled out of context in a way that changes the meaning.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arugula Latte]

130. Great list of quotes! Thank you!

:hi:

[SKKY]

131. The score is now SCanitGOP - 36, Republicans - 0

Great list of quotes, although, I would like to read each one in their proper context. Not to say I don't trust you- you've obviously done your homework. I would just like to get more details about each quote.

[Newsjock]

2. We have exactly the government we deserve

And nothing will change until these attitudes change.

[Hosnon]

11. Yep...democracy in action!

(sigh)...

[Thothmes]

78. In Action

If we had a true direct democracy, that is what we would have. Fortunatly, our federal system as built into the Constitution helps to prevent a rule by unwashed masses.

[Hosnon]

90. Little "d", not big "D".

We're certainly not a true Democracy, but the will of the majority is very important and usually rules when protected rights are not involved.

[AlCzervik]

3. people really need to read more.

[mitchum]

13. Those idiots don't even read their magic book of fairy tales...

rather they rely on pulpit-dwelling grifters to "interpret" it for them

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

28. Shocking, isn't it?

How so many Christians don't have a firm grasp on the tenets of their own faith tradition. So it should be so shocking that so many people living in a representative democracy have no clue as to how their government works.

[tblue37]

66. I am not a Christian--or religious at all. But I have studied comparative

I am not a Christian—or religious at all. But I have studied comparative mythology for decades, and I teach literature at the college level. I have even tutored a future minister studying for her master's in theology at a Methodist seminary. (She was finding the foundational documents of Protestantism and Methodism difficult to read and understand. I have no trouble explaining them. I know the material, and I am a good teacher.)

When I teach literature, I deal with the themes found in the works under discussion. Until pretty recently, most works in Western literature were based on Judaeo-Christian stories, themes, and symbols. Even now, works by nonreligious writers nevertheless often make use of these images and ideas, which are foundational in our culture, just as Christian writers of earlier times often used Greek ad Roman myths for their themes and symbols.

Every time I teach poetry, drama, or fiction, I find myself having to explain the relevant Christian material to people who call themselves Christians. Catholic students are more likely to have some familiarity with church’s doctrines, because they get some religious education before First Communion. But Protestant students almost never know anything about Protestantism or even about Christianity in general. None of them know their bible.

Sometimes a fundamentalist student will try to come at me with things he/she has heard in Sunday school class or from the pulpit, and then I cite Scripture back at the person. The student is always amazed. Most have never heard about those parts of the bible that I quote. They only know the parts their ministers drum into their heads every week in church--if they know anything at all.

So I am often in the very weird position of explaining to “Christians” what they supposedly believe, even though I do not believe any of that stuff myself. I can’t even begin to teach most literature until I have taught them about the necessary Christian images, ideas, or meanings. (I won’t say it wasn’t tempting to mess with the future Methodist minister’s mind, but I have too many scruples to do anything like that.)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

82. I've had that same experience...

I was adjunct faculty teaching Intro to Literature. In various works when there'd be religious symbolism, I'd ask some really (ready) obvious question and get a bunch of blank stares.

My most common response: Didn't your parents ever take you people to Sunday School?!

[Crayson]

85. Glad they didn't take me to Sunday school

phew....
I haven't been indoctrinated and became a free mind.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. I was indoctrinated, but it didn't take

But being able to freely quote scripture helps when I get into religious arguments with them.

[clixtox]

103. Scruples?

I would say that you had an obligation to teach your students lessons based in reality, not one or more fantasies, no matter how ubiquitous.


In a secular institution those beliefs have to be defined as what they are now, and were once historically. If the collection of fables and pseudo-history known as the "Bible" is used as a resource without reality-based context, if necessary, you are collaborating and complicit in a dangerous fraud.

It's easy to play along, like assuring children that there really is a Santa Claus. I didn't get that impression that you were teaching "Sunday School".

The problem is that you owe your students more. If they were ESL students would you speak to them in "baby talk" or enunciate and pace proper English carefully?

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression don't require everyone, or anyone, to abet superstition in the USA, yet. Those who believe otherwise would much prefer that you keep your mind as credulous as theirs, and tuned into only what they are selling.

The truth is: If you can believe that any of the world's religions has an analysis of the basic conundrums any more accurate than some other, than you will believe just about anything, if you hear it enough and believe that many other's believe likewise.

That is how we were politically, economically and culturally controlled for many centuries and that should be expressed/taught as well as the much more intricate institutions that control us in every way now.

That this surely sounds like a hopeless task indicates just how our educational system creates ignorant, ingenuous graduates. And way too often, mindless, fawning Republicans!!!

[DemBones DemBones]

111. Try to teach literature to people who have never

read the Bible. They won't get many of the allusions or symbols. An awful lot of literature includes a Christ figure, for example. If you can't identify a Christ figure when you see one, you're not going to do well in literature classes.

Try to teach Western art history to people who know nothing about Christian symbols, or Eastern art history to people who know nothing about Buddhist symbolism or Hindu gods and goddesses. A competent teacher can teach about Christianity or Buddhism or Confucianism without proselytizing.

Teachers who teach students about Biblical references and allusions, Christian symbols, Buddhist symbols, etc., are broadening their horizons. You can't claim to be an educated person without knowledge of all the world's great cultures. which always includes knowledge of their religious beliefs and how those beliefs influenced their culture. It's not just about Christianity by any means.

When I was in sixth grade, we learned all about the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods, the Greek, and Roman gods. We had to learn all their names and what they did (Zeus was the boss, Hermes was the messenger, etc.) This was part of studying the Norse, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman peoples and how they lived. Sixth grade! Needless to say, we learned more about different cultures and religious symbolism in later grades.

You are suggesting making students more ignorant, all because you personally dislike religion. You are free to dislike religion but to ignore the influence that religion has had on literature, art, and history is to choose ignorance over knowledge. You are being every bit as narrow-minded as the fundamentalist Christian who refuses to learn anything about science.

[clixtox]

112. Have you willfully misconstrued my post?

I didn't recommend that learning about, and being aware of, religious icons and myths be avoided, only that they be put in context similarly to how you learned about Zeus and Mercury. If a student of yours sincerely believed in the Norse pantheon of "Gods" today, then in a secular setting I would expect the teacher to put this belief system in the context of the lack of knowledge extant back then and how superstitions were utilized in those times to answer the mysteries inherent in our living and dying.

Today I expect a conscientious teacher to put "modern" contemporary religions and literary conventions similarly in context. Appropriate possibly for simpler times but religions are receding anachronisms in the 21st century, which are literally, and thankfully, dying out amongst properly educated populations.

As long as we as teachers have a go-along attitude and don't confront the fantasies realistically, ignorance will continue to be a sacrament. That might work for many but it is inimical to a healthy understanding of our realities now.

[tblue37]

115. I am a teacher of literature. Whether the stuff I teach is "true" is quite beside

the point.

Once a student told me that my referring to "the Christin myth" or "Judaeo-Christian" mythology was "wrong" because it put what he considered to be "the Truth" on the same level as Norse mythology and Greek and Roman mythology. I replied that for our purposes in that class it WAS on the same level. The word "myth" as used in my class refers to a certain type of story and its function within the culture that produced it. It has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the stories or symbols under discussion. I told him that even if I were a minister of a specific religious sect, it would not be my place to attest to whether the stories or themes we dealt with in class are true or not, because the class was about literture, not religion, and religion--no matter whose religion--was only relevant in that it provided the materials from which the literature was made.

On the other side, however, it is absolutely not my business to try to "teach" my unbelief to Christin students (or to students wh believe in any other religion).

If as a teacher you actually are haranguing your students about the falsity of their religious beliefs, then you are seriously overstepping the boundaries of your job, and the students and their parents would have a right to object.

You have no right to badger a captive audience about their religious beliefs, just as a religious teacher has no right to harass her atheist students about their lack of religious beliefs.

I can't believe that you do not understand how incredibly inappropriate it would be to turn a college literature class into an attack on the students' religious beliefs, no matter how much you disagree with them! I am not happy with the fact that children are indoctrinated into religious belief before they can develop their reason enough to resist such beliefs, but I have no right to try to pressure them into believing my way just because I have power over them as their teacher!

[DemBones DemBones]

121. Excellent post! Of course it's appropriate to

refer to "Christian myth" in the context of literature. A student who understood how you were using the word "myth" would not have complained as that young man did.

When I was on the biology faculty of a liberal arts college, I had a student come to my office to tell me he was having problems with my class because he didn't like science, his family didn't like science, he'd been taught all his life not to like science.

I was a little stunned that a college junior would admit that he and his family were anti-science, especially when I hadn't mentioned evolution yet! :shrug:

Teaching is never dull.

[DemBones DemBones]

120. No, I didn't misconstrue your post at all. You want teachers to tell

students that the religion many of them practice is false. Teachers have no right to do that, ever, as tblue37 has already explained quite well.

I suspect you don't have the courage to tell Muslim students that Islam is false since Muslims would sue you for discrimination and you would likely lose your job.

Atheists have been allowed to get away with saying Christianity is false for far too long and we Christians are now fighting back. Don't count on getting away with telling students that Christianity is false in the future.

You are absolutely entitled to your atheistic views, but you are not ever entitled to impose them on your students, unless you are teaching in a school that makes clear that its mission is to educate students to be atheists. I am not entitled to impose my beliefs on my students, either, unless I am teaching religion in a Catholic school.

You wrote: "religions are receding anachronisms in the 21st century, which are literally, and thankfully, dying out amongst properly educated populations."

That statement reflects the supreme arrogance of the dogmatic atheist who hasn't noticed the growth of traditional religions. Religions are not dying out.

The churches that are losing members are those who have no firm beliefs, just provide happy-clappy "community experiences."

To assert that religions are dying out "amongst properly educated populations" is just the tired old "All intelligent and educated people are atheists" argumentum ad hominem.

Of course when you say "properly educated" perhaps you really mean "conditioned " or "brainwashed." Conditioning against religion will work in some, not in others. The communist USSR and China tried very, very hard to condition their people to be atheists and it did not work.

Two days ago, a bishop in the "underground" Catholic Church in China died. (The Catholic Church is "underground" in China because the Chinese government allows only a state-controlled "Catholic Church.") The bishop was 70 and had spent 35 years in prison, solitary confinement, or re-education camps but he never gave up his faith. Thirty-five years and they couldn't "re-educate" him!

It's pointless for atheists to keep starting arguments with theists. You're not going to change our beliefs. If you care about our country, worry about how we can save it, not about other people's beliefs. Freedom of religion means all of us can believe whatever we choose to.

[tblue37]

125. You are a believer. I am a nonbeliever. Yet we agree absolutely on

a teacher's proper role in the classroom. Isn't it too bad that aggressive fundamentalists on both sides of the issue (yes, there are aggressive atheist fundies, too!) cannot be reasonable about such things?

(Also, I am an agnsotic, not an atheist. I love Richard Dawkins, but he would disapprove of me because he considers agnosticism to be a wishy-washy cop-out. I just prefer not to be dogmatic about things I cannot know for certain.)

[tomg]

138. to TBlue37 and Dem Bones

Thanks so much for one of the most intelligent and articulate exchanges about what it is we do ( or try to do on our good days) in the university classroom. Sometimes people just don't get what we do.

[Zhade]

139. Calling myths myths is not telling people to give up their religion.

You're not persecuted just because we don't buy into your myths.

[Critters2]

53. "Pulpit-dwelling grifter" certainly implies that I should be making

more money than I am. Oh, and they pay me to "interpret" it because they made me go to school to learn how.

It's always nice to see the tolerance of the left.

[mitchum]

63. Not ALL pulpit-dwellers are grifters...

however, I have always wondered why there is a protestant clergy/priestly class. Wasn't THAT the main bone of contention with "the mother church"?
If protestants are still gong to have an agent between man and god, they should have just remained catholic. Eh?

"It's always nice to see the tolerance of the left"
How about that persecution gospel?

[Critters2]

74. I am not a member of a different class than my parishioners

nor am I an agent between man (humanity) and God. All people approach God on their own. I simply tech the tradition, and offer pastoral care on behalf of the congregation. My only expertise is in that I have spent more time studying scripture and the tradition. There's no special mark on my soul, and I have no special pull with God. I don't grant absolution, I don't re-enact any sacrifice. I am not a priest. My official title is "pastor and teacher". Because, well, that's what I am. I'm the one who demonstrates the concern of the congregation. I'm the one who teaches the faith. Not because I'm special, but because I'm trained to do so.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

83. Martin Luther's term...

The Priesthood of all Believers -- although I don't think he coined the phrase.

But the fact is many protestants (of the evangelical stripe) have got it wrong. I think many of them really do believe that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or whoever, really do have some special connection with the almighty. And that it's the believers' place to simply do as they're told. It's almost like a cult of personality, and its definitely not in the protestant tradition. As a kid growing up in a (very) conservative congregation, I was told that I shouldn't ask questions because questioning your faith leads to sin. Seriously.

[Critters2]

95. There are days when I wish my parishioners believed I had a

special connection with the almighty. But alas, they take this "different but equal vocation" stuff seriously. I'm one of them...the one who's not too nervous to get up and talk in public every Sunday. And in my tradition, questioning is considered healthy. Dammit! :)

Thanks for some healthy questions yourself :hi:

[Chovexani]

94. That's a pretty simplistic view of the Reformation

That was a big reason, but it was more for the fact that it encouraged a widespread culture of corruption within the Church. Things like the sale of indulgences and the like, that the Brahmanic caste of Catholicism were living like gilded princes.

...kind of like fundie Evangelicalism today, actually.

I've always seen the Protestant strain of ministers to be teachers, elders, people you go to for guidance. They aren't necessarily any closer to God than you are. They're just wiser. They're supposed to be more like coaches or professors, really. The crucial mistake Christians of all stripes fall into, but fundies in particular (and one of the many, many reasons I left born again Fundie-anity) is mistaking their pastor for a guru. That sort of thing leads to the cults of personality you see in Fundie-ism, where no matter how vile the preaching (whether it's HATE TEH GAY or "God wants you to be filthy fucking rich"), it's slavishly followed as word from on high. Even the Bible says to "test the fruits" of something, and far too many Christians seem to blithely ignore that verse.

IMO, priests aren't ministers between mortals and the Divine, but that's why I'm a Pagan. I think the fact that Pagan priest/esses have day jobs keeps us honest for the most part.

[knight_of_the_star]

104. Exactly

Just because our priests, depending on what name you call them by, may lead in ritual this is more because they really do know their stuff, NOT necessarily because they are closer to the Gods than any other person participating, they just know how to get lots of people to effectively connect in a meaningful fashion.

That and personally I've always thought someone who is a person of faith or a person of the cloth who does not get their cloth dirty or put their faith to the test in real life was kind of weak in their faith in and of itself.

[happyslug]

129. The Reformation was just the First step to modern Nationalism/Capitalism

The Catholic Church has always viewed itself as an INTERNATIONAL organization made up of parts within the Nations of the world. It tended to be more Pro-Italy and pro-Papal states for Centuries (Until the Papal States were abolished in 1869) but always retained this international position. As Northern Europe embraced Capitalism and Nationalism this movement came into conflict the Internationalism of Northern Europe (and France and even Northern Italy). Given that Northern Italy was so divided they had to support some sort of international body, the Catholic Church Survived in Italy (This reason extended to Eastern Spain and Southern France, areas with people whose native language was closer to Italian then Spanish and Italian do to trade). Parts of France embraced Calvinism but with the growth of the French State control of the main form of information to peasants had to be kept open and that was under the control of the Bishops of Paris, so France stayed Catholic (As did Southern Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe for the same reason). Ireland during the Reformation came under stricter British control, which the Irish peasants responded to be staying Catholic, for the Catholic Priests and Bishops could be a way to word from them to their leaders). England embraced the Church of England as a Compromise, it was still "Catholic" in many ways but tied in directly with the Throne. Given London's connections with the Northern Europe, it had to be "Protestant" to keep up its trade relations, but given its huge rural populations it had to be "Catholic" to keep up the communication system between the people and the Government.

Communication between the people and its government is important, you need to know what the Government is up to (and the reverse is also true, the Government need to know what the people need and want). Prior to the introduction of the Railroad (Which permitted mass shipments of papers), the invention of the High Speed press AND the invention of Pulp paper (The last two needed to have anything close to what we now call "Newspapers", all came into use c1850) the best way to get such information was through the Church (Which required at least yearly attention and tried to encouraged weekly attention). It is do to this communication system that Governments wanted to control the Church of their Country (and tried to make everyone of their Countrymen a member of that Church).

Thus the Protestant Reformation, while geared and worded in the then known problems within the Catholic Church, should be looked at as transfer of the power to communication from the Nobility of the Middle ages to the new Middle Class of the Renaissance. Even Karl Marx noted this problem when he looked at the language used doing the English Civil War (1640-1650) which was religious in nature, for that is how people thought, to the language used after the English Glorious Revolution of 1688. Prior to 1688 the papers we have refer to the bible and the demons of the Bible, for it was in people's background to think that way. After 1688 the language changed, biblical terms were no longer used, instead language of the still growing Middle Class came to dominate. This language dropped the Bible and used commerce as the justification of what had happened. The Middle Class grabbed the hold of the means of Communication and wanted to spread that the Middle Class was now in Charge AND went with philosophers that justified that change (Rejecting religious disputes and emphasizing the Commercial "gains").

Thus you can look at the Reformation as the start of the process of Modern Nationalism replacing the older concept of a Universal Government (Catholic is an old Latin term meaning Universal) that the Catholic Church had tried to be since the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The dogmatic disputes were minor, it was NOT religion but the Economic movement of the Middle Class the drove the Reformation and the later English Civil War. Today, the growth of non-attendance is more the product of modern Society no longer needing a go someplace to meet people, we now have Newspaper, bars, and even the net to get information (to and from the Government) so religion, as being part of HOW one lives, is on the decline. Even this can be seen as Economic, Going to Church TODAY means being unable to get on the net (or to work) one less hour per week. People will justify that change for "Rational Reasons" but it is the economic ones that are the most powerful.

[hedgehog]

4. Confusing religion with the state is bad for religion.

Just look at Europe. Most of the countries have a state supported religion or a de-facto state religion and empty churches.

[maxsolomon]

5. gov't endosement is not neccessarily the reason for empty churches in europe

try non-belief in monotheism.

[hedgehog]

12. Perhaps not, but when a preacher paid and chosen by the government

tells you to obey the government, it tends to make people cynical.

[brentspeak]

46. Two world wars destroyed Europe's faith in pretty much everything

[Joe Chi Minh]

135. Not quite. Germany's immediate post-war aftermath, Ground zero,

referred to the physical rubble of the total defeat and humiliation of a dictator, and the nation whose government he had usurped, yet who is worshipped by numbskulls elsewhere to this very day.

However, after some years when Nazi propaganda increasingly coloured the country's ethos, there was bound to be an accompanying spiritual Ground Zero. Once he felt powerful enough to take on the Christian churches, Hitler did so with a vengeance. Nevertheless, I was horrified to hear from a young German lad that all Germans were obliged by law to pay a tithe to a Christian church. Whether it was technically a tenth of their income I don't know.

However, in recent years, I realise what a shrewd and enlightened measure it was. Imagine if Ayn Rand's finest had had their say. At the very time when the rest of the West was on course to abandon its Christian ethos, the Germans were re-learning it. Of course, the need to renew the country's industrial infrastructure, together with the Germans' general aptitude for matters scientific and technological, soon made them the industrial power-house of Europe, but also it has been notable how, while the rest of the West has been succumbing to corporatism and at least crypto-fascism, the Germans have been in the vanguard of so-called Old Europe, in repudiating economic class warfare, and a return to the values which informed the architects of the Nuremburg Trials, the Geneva Convention, etc.

The problem with atheism is that it is the ultimate privatisation project, the individual is sovereign and everyone's viewpoint, however noxiously repugnant to even natural justice, is of equal value. As Thatcher so eloquently put it, "society stops at my front door." Even a society of regimented myrmidons, such as those of bees and ants seems preferable, with everyone working for the common good - except of course that, since it would be nationalistic in the extreme, it would most certainly not be for the common good, but rather would be an outcome beyond even fascist leaders' wildest dreams.

In fact, the few mysteries which form the axioms of the Christian faith (paradoxes, such as physicists are now discovering proliferate so profusely at the outer limits of physics. How much more supernatural truths), no-one is required to deny the use of their reason. Instead, adherence to these very axioms forms the best springboard for knowledge, as a seemingly endless procession of the most innovative thinkers in the fields of science, alone (that basest of all spheres of knowledge), attest. Enstein did not believe in a pesonal God, but he did believe in a god responsible for the sovereignly intelligent design of the universe, and had clearly been ethically informed by Judaism, though his parents were non-observant, and by a Catholic elementary-school education (i.e. during his most formative years).

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pingzing58]

65. When the leaders of the different churches in Europe fail to explain the faith in ways that are

relevant to the Christian's lives but instead demand absolute obedience to Papal authority and the "evils of relativism" rather than offer insights and show compassion towards the struggle of the everyday Christian with issues of divorce, sex before marriage, cohabitation, contraception, number of children to have, work and wages, retirement, health and medical issues, women's rights to education and access to leadership positions even in the ecclesial heirarchy, then, why should the people listen. Why go to Church if one is not going to be "fed" by the word? That's why Churches are empty in Europe but not here in the rebellious U.S.

[RainDog]

79. uh, not all European nations are catholic

your post is a "talking point" I've heard before, but it's not accurate. The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, GB, for instance, all became protestant-identified nations after the Reformation. They are just as secular, if not more so, than catholic-identified nations.

I can share some actual experience, since I have family members who were born and grew up in a European nation. I can tell you that they are taught science in the classroom, not fundie belief. there is no discussion about including religion in science. They learn about the history of western thought that moved away from religion with the enlightenment (the same ideas that led to the foundation of the U.S.) Atheism is not a big deal there because people recognize that one can be moral and ethical without a named god to scare you into this.

they, rather than the so-called christians here, believe in caring for their fellow citizens and thus enacted laws to bring a basic level of human rights to people via universal health care and subsisdized food. Salaries allow a living wage and the unemployed do not have to live on the street. They do not kill people as an apparatus of the state via the death penalty. they have a higher quality of life than people here, overall. -- this is my experience from a "catholic" nation. they could care less what the pope says. they live their lives as secular modern thinking humans.

the level of misunderstanding about what life is like for most people in Europe is another example of American mis-education.

[Crayson]

84. /sign

Religion is pretty much a non-issue for western european people under the age of 50.

The only thing discussed about religion is the extremists placing bombs here and there.

I'm 32 years old and I know NOBODY who goes to church, except my 65 year old mother.
Religion is a non-issue.
You may of course believe what you want, in private.
But when you start "preaching", trying to discuss about religion, or trying to convice other people of your religion, you get strange looks and most probably loose friends.
^_^

I freed myself from religion, and I'll make sure to teach my children about EVERY religion on this world, accompanied by a big WARNING not to let other people think for oneself.

For me, it's exactly true, as mentioned above:
You can be an ethical and moral person without believing in a hight power that punishes you if you're not.

People on this planet have to start taking responsibility for their deeds and as long as people believe in false gods, they have the opportunity to shift that responsibility away from them and towards their god!
That way, we'll never have peace or an end of pollution!

[pingzing58]

96. Excellent. Thanks for this post. It's the role of civil gov to ensure that there are limits to

subjective morality and ethics (what the church calls relativism). I'm wondering if your view reflects not the reformation but earlier in history the "enlightenment" and the growth of the importance of the individual - the person - in history.

[RainDog]

100. the reformation was before the enlightenment

the quick and dirty explanation of history that many can no doubt improve upon-

the reformation (1500s-1600s) occurred b/c church and state were entwined and both used "christianity" for political and financial ends (sound familiar?) More people became literate as printing presses made it possible to create books for less cost. Of course, the book with the most prestige was the bible, or books of hours. Martin Luther wanted to strip away the artifice from gilded clergy and royalty --Erasmus said humanity, not clerics, were important... and thus began the long, war-filled argument over which state religion was going to rule. The Puritans that came to America were rebelling against the church of England, not catholicism. But the CoE was another way power was concentrated among a few.

The enlightenment (1700s to 1800) was, in a way, an attempt to codify knowledge yet again because people had learned more about the way the world worked. the enlightenment was tied to the growth of "objective" knowledge, not clerical or royal interpretations of the world... people wondered what was true and what was said to be true in order to empower the powerful. the enlightenment led to the French Revolution (this was in the late 1700s) One big part of the French Revolution was the confiscation of church lands and the attempt to destroy that church/royal state apparatus. After Napoleon's empire, the industrial era needed more educated workers. The protestant movements taught people so that they could read the bible for themselves. (This began in the late 1700s and was a big feature of the 1800s... Then nationalism was a big deal. People identified themselves by the language they spoke, etc. Then WWI, then the Bolshevik Revolution which many in Europe saw as an evolution from the reformation to the enlightenment to the idea of human rights based upon a social contract -- an idea (the social contract) that was central to the Enlightenment.

WWII was the culmination of nationalism -- and in Germany, at least, it was in large part a fight between socialism/communism and fascism. Fascism lost. Then the U.S. became a major world power b/c the European nations were bombed to smithereens and our industries helped to rebuild theirs. After WWII, many Europeans thought communism was the way to create govt. after the debacle of WWII and nationalism. Communists in European nations were imp. in the fight against fascism and they gained power b/c they were the good guys. Communism was another political party that competed for representation. Workers were able to carve out rights for themselves b/c of their unions and many workers were/are communist. This is one great difference b/t Europe and America. The workers movements in the U.S. were put down by force before WWII. After the war, communism was the new bogeyman, in part b/c the U.S. imported German fascists who lied about the threat of communism in order to make themselves necessary.

Before WWI, the U.S. was sort of a backwater - the American Rev. was an inspiration, but the continuation of slavery into the 1800s made the U.S. look less enlightened than during its revolutionary period. So, before WWII, all the real action was in Europe (and Americans went to Europe b/c they knew this too.) America didn't produce any philosophers worth noting until Dewey, etc.-- this was "aristotle-inspired" philosophy... pragmatic. In comparison, various (continental) Europeans explored "platonic" ideas concerning the issues of existence, being, etc. long before WWI or II. The difference b/t philosopical inquiry and religious beliefs is, imo, one of the great divides b/t European and American consciousness.

just a quickie outline that, as I said, could surely be improved upon, but again, Europe is sooooo misrepresented in the U.S. (esp. lately) that it's maybe important to look at the ways their history and ours have varied. And just to say that the reformation came before the enlightenment.

[Lance_Boyle]

117. Actually, in former West Germany, you were born with a religion,

and when you arrived at the age at which you began to pay taxes, a portion of your tax money went to the church assigned to you at birth. Unless your parents declared you Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or whatever, the state declared you Lutheran by default. And a portion of your taxes went to that church. Unless you filed paperwork to emancipate yourself from your assigned religion.

Whether this continues in unified Germany I have no idea. I also don't know if parents had the option of assigning their children "no religion" status at birth. But my point was that at least in this regard - taxpayer-supported religion - the US is more of a secular state than former West Germany was.

[RainDog]

119. well, yeah, my family was "born" catholic...

and kids go through confirmation and people get married at a church after they get married legally, if they want to, and people go to midnight mass on Christmas eve and celebrate three kings day...

but this is NOTHING like religious extremism in america. the tradition matters, but I never met anyone, during the time I lived in Europe or visited there who had the sort of religious beliefs that you find all over the place in the U.S. The catholics have a party that vie for govt. seats, but again, they do not come close to the literal-minded homophobic, oh hell xenophobic so-called christians here. one guy I know used to come here and videotape tv evangelists because he said no one would believe him if he just told him that, in the U.S. anyone would take this sort of religious belief seriously.

as an American, when I visited Europe for the first time, it was like scales falling from my eyes. absolutely. I cried when I had to come home. the attitude is sooo much more oppressive here. on the other hand, I've known people from europe who come here and like it because they don't have the family obligations and all that that is expected if they live there. but they, too, were critical of the lack of human rights in the U.S. and the religious stupidity.

[Crayson]

86. try non-belief in anytheism ^^

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Yes, it is. It absolutely works both ways. Bad for government, and

bad for religion.

Separation is one of the wisest things the founders built into the Constitution.

[Tempest]

6. Americans are the dumbest people on earth

1/3 still believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.

[krispos42]

7. Wikipedia is your friend, Freepers

Not conservapedia.

Compare and contrast:

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Washington#Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Religious_beliefs

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

33. There's a conservapedia.com!?!?! Oh God...

If I tried rolling my eyes any harder, I'd be looking square at my own brain.

[krispos42]

40. Oh yeah, it's, um, interesting in a train-wreck sort of way

I read in there someplace that the 19th Amendment was a result of "activist judges".

I didn't know that judges could amend the constitution! :crazy:

[knight_of_the_star]

105. Oh my personal favorite in there

The collapse of the Mongol Empire was due to...

INFLATION!

Talk about going beyond oversimplification into the realm of out and out bullshit

[bluestateguy]

8. Mixing religion with government is great...as long as the religion government chooses is yours

I have no doubt that if public schools in rural South Carolina led Muslim or Jewish prayers all of the community would be immediately screaming about separation of church and state.

[brentspeak]

47. There's plenty of people in Blue states who want prayer in the classroom, too

[panzerfaust]

57. plenty also who want blacks

back in the field - or at least back in "their place".

Still don't make it right.

[Netbeavis]

9. denial just ain't a river in Eqypt.

So I guess its no use arguing with these people why Jefferson et. al went out of their way to make sure via The Constitution religion and its leaders could not take over the government.

[FiveGoodMen]

10. That's because a certain group of people keep telling that lie

I won't mention any names, I'll just look at the cross and whistle.

[hootinholler]

20. It's also that the lie is repeated when debunking it...

There was a new study out that says don't do that, simply say there is no way the US was founded as a christian nation.

-Hoot

[UncleSepp]

49. Or "The US was founded as a secular state"

Then, the only repetition of the opposition's lie is the implied opposite, which is "The US was founded as a religious state" and not the by the opposition desired "the US was founded as a Christian state".

:-) I like the way you think. Who's doing these studies?

[hootinholler]

51. I didn't bookmark it...

I think there was a post here on DU about it in the past few days. They were studying the way the brain perceives truth. If something is recalled it gets more truth weight. The more often something is heard, the easier it is to recall.

You have a much better response than I came up with.

-Hoot

[UncleSepp]

61. I'll look for it, thanks

Unfortunately, the stuff I know about how the mind perceives truth doesn't come from a very good source. Oh well... Magic mushrooms grow under poop, so maybe under the worst B.S. lies something useful and good?

I think it's also important to consider that people may hear or remember part of what you say. A statement that depends on negation for its truth can easily be remembered without the negation to the opposite effect. It's important to take care with complex, layered communication that each piece of that thought builds positively toward the thought that the communication should create. That way, a person who gets just a part of the communication doesn't end up with the wrong message because of it.

[onehandle]

14. Most are also uneducated and/or incurious.

Fox News is the #1 "News" network. That says it all.

[I Have A Dream]

21. Not just uneducated people. I work with extremely...

intelligent people with PhDs, and they would say the same thing. :(

[onehandle]

23. Changed my comment to and/or instead of just and.

That covers "intelligent people with PhDs"

Facts are facts. All they have to do is look it up.

[atreides1]

25. Having a PhD...

....doesn't mean you're intelligent, it just means you went to school for a long time and passed a test.

[enki23]

29. actually, it means you are (or should be) an expert in a particular area

and it means quite a lot more than many people without advanced degrees give them credit for. there are plenty of dumbass phd's in the world, sure. compared to general population, however, and it's night and fucking day. don't knock the work, and in many cases sacrifice, that goes into advanced degrees. having a phd doesn't mean "you passed a test." it means you passed a *lot* of tests, some of which are usually pretty damned difficult, all the while paying for the privilege (or deferring that payment). all this is generally done with at least some hope that someday, probably in a distant future, you'll make a salary equivalent to that of a mediocre mortgage broker who got shoehorned into the family business.

such a commitment to learning is something very few people could, or *would*, do. it's pretty damned insulting to hear people, most of whom don't know their ass from a hole in the ground on the subject, carping about how little all that work and sacrifice actually means.

[nealmhughes]

43. Indeed, most history programs, for example, have three tested fields and one untested

on the comps. That is on top of a MA and BA. That is on top of all the seminar papers, the bibliographies and historiographical essays one does even to prepare to take the exams -- then one gets to write a dissertation and then defend it -- count on at least 3 years for that, all while teaching undergrads and attending conferences and presenting papers and serving on committees at the same time.
The amount of reading done for a MA in the liberal arts probably is the equivalent of a "normal" person's lifetime reading. Let us not even consider having to master both research in every format -- print, database, and also archival that goes into it.
I have assisted in the production of two PhD dissertations and one can never know what agony it is to go thru microfilm for days upon days until they kick you out, reading the entire years' worth of runs of a given newspaper to try to gleam one mention of the subject or an auxiliary of it for the dissertation.
All while trying to live on $12 K a year and playing departmental politics to get another GTA or research fund grant!
A newly minted PhD should be the absolute expert of their field and capable of teaching three fields -- not quite the same as taking a "test."
There is a reason why so many graduate students end up drunks, drug addicts or nervous wrecks and antisocial -- it is a hard see saw upon which to teeter without tottering.

[I Have A Dream]

35. No, these people are very intelligent. I don't think that they're...

very wise though.

[Zodiak]

15. The funny thing is:

The Constitution is a very short document...only a few pages. Any idiot can read a few pages and see that this Christianity bullshit isn't there.

[FiveGoodMen]

39. The people who insist this is a christian nation don't even read whole pages of their own holy book

Seriously, they repeat a couple of sentences from here, a couple from there ... and only the sentences (verses) that their leaders direct them to.

Reading the whole document is how many non-believers came to be non-believers so they don't really encourage that sort of behavior.

[rodeodance]

16. The "scariest" number, in Haynes' opinion, is that only 56% agree that freedom of religion applies t

He is right-------



..........Rick Green of WallBuilders, an advocacy group that believes the nation was built on Christian principles, says the poll doesn't mean a majority favors a "theocracy" but that the Constitution reflects Christian values, including religious freedom. "I would call it a Christian document, just like the Declaration of Independence," he says.

The "scariest" number, in Haynes' opinion, is that only 56% agree that freedom of religion applies to all groups "regardless of how extreme their beliefs are." That's down from 72% in 2000. More than one in four say constitutional protection of religion does not apply to "extreme" groups.

[pattmarty]

17. Praise fucking Jesus!!!!!!!

[MadHound]

18. More denial of reality by uneducated idiots

First of all, most people would be surprised that either a large minority or a majority of our founding fathers, those who signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution were either atheists, agnostics or Deists, which is why you here the repeated reference to "Providence" as opposed to "God".

Secondly, if it wasn't made clear enough in the Constitution, it was plainly spelled out in the Treaty of Tripoli, passed by two thirds of the Congress and signed by John Adams, that this is not a Christian nation: "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 tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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."

Yet these idiots who either don't know or don't want to know their true American history push forth that this is a Christian nation to further their own agenda.

[Hydra]

19. Be careful of these people

mistaken belief can become reality when enough idiots think it's a good idea.

[sakabatou]

22. Treaty of Tripoli, bitch!

[Baby Snooks]

24. The Treaty of Tripoli

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.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

I don't know how many of the founding fathers were around when the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the US Senate in 1797, ten years after the Constitution was ratified, but there is no record of any of them having protested it or its firm declaration that the United States was NOT founded on the Christian religion. One of those founding fathers, John Adams, in fact signed it as president.

There is no document to be found by any of the founding fathers indicating an intent to found a Christian nation nor any document to be found by any of the founding fathers protesting what is firmly declared in the Treaty of Tripoli.

But the majority rules as they say. Even in the face of fact, and what is stated in the Constitution, that contradicts it, it still rules.

[Baby Snooks]

31. The Curse of Ham

I have to wonder how many of these same people also believe in the Curse of Ham which was used for centuries to justify slavery.

Even the Supreme Court has difficulty with what was stated in the Treaty of Tripoli within the framework of the First Amendment. No civil law should be based on religious law. And yet quite a few of our laws are. Segregation laws were based on the Curse of Ham. And the Curse of Ham is very evident in the disparity of justice that still exists in our country. Minorities are charged with crimes that "whites" are not. Minorities are sent to prison for life while "whites" are given probation. To really understand the term "white" you need only look at the white robes of the KKK.

Racism has its roots in the Curse of Ham. And it is a Christian racism. The founding fathers should have addressed the racism themselves. The reality is that at that time, well, the majority ruled. They still should have addressed it. Thomas Jefferson had slaves. One of whom was his mistress. With whom he had children.

That they did not address it is also used as a basis for the belief the founding fathers believed in the Curse of Ham and the belief that they founded a Christian country. Otherwise they would have freed the slaves since the Constitution says "of the people" which obviously didn't include the slaves. Hence, they believed in the Curse of Ham. Hence, they believed that this was a Christian nation. Didn't have to be written. It just was. Never mind that later it was stated that it was not. You cannot argue with these people. Inevitably they will look at you and tell you that you need to "find" Christ and that they will pray for you.

What you can do is look closely at who you vote for. And simply not vote for people who pander to the ignorance of these people.

Unfortunately that seems to a major problem with the Democratic candidates for president. They are all being forced to declare their faith as if it were a prerequisite to the presidency.

That indicates the oligarchy is becoming a theocracy.

[brentspeak]

48. There is no proof that Jefferson had a slave as a mistress

There has only been speculation, nothing definitive. The most we can say is that one of the Jefferson males -- perhaps Jefferson's brother, Randolph -- had a relationship with Sally Hemings, one of Thomas Jefferson's slaves. Randolph was known to spend a lot of time at Monticello just to socialize with the slaves.

[loves_dulcinea]

54. well, there is

the matter of his tombstone which reads:

"once ye go black, ye never go back"

[ProudDad]

106. How about a DNA match? That work for you?

"That a Jefferson-Hemings relationship could be neither refuted nor substantiated was challenged in 1998 by the results of DNA tests conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists. The study - which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson's Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas C. Woodson - indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings."

Why not Thomas Jefferson?

[DemBones DemBones]

122. The poster already told you "Why not Thomas Jefferson?"

"The most we can say is that one of the Jefferson males -- perhaps Jefferson's brother, Randolph -- had a relationship with Sally Hemings, one of Thomas Jefferson's slaves. Randolph was known to spend a lot of time at Monticello just to socialize with the slaves."

Randolph Jefferson, being Thomas's brother, could have contributed the Jefferson Y chromosome.

The few of those other 25 male Jeffersons who are known to have visited Monticello are also possible fathers of Eston Hemings.

It really can't be proven that Thomas Jefferson was or was not the father of Sally Heming's last child, Eston Hemings.

It can be proven that someone in the Jefferson family was the father of Eston Hemings but that's as far as it goes.

This has been discussed a lot on genealogy discussion forums but I haven't seen any new info that adds to what you said.

[cain_7777]

26. Systematic dumbing down of Americans across the board

"Churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights... erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." -Thomas Jefferson

"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." George Washington

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -Ben Franklin

[abq e streeter]

41. Those damn liberals

why do they hate America? ( note--can't get sarcasm emoticon to work)

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. This is OBVIOUS to anyone who reads the Constitution

God, Jesus and Christianity receive SOOOOOO much space in the Constitution, it is like reading the Authorized Version of the Bible. :eyes:

[Nihil]

32. Well you're certainly right for #2 & #3 with one minor change ...

> Jesus and Christianity receive SOOOOOO much space in the Constitution,
> it is like reading the Authorized Version of the Old Testament.

:evilgrin:

[TechBear_Seattle]

37. I sit corrected

:hi:

And you know why it is called the Authorized Version, right? It is because it is the only version of the Bible authorized by God. EVERYONE knows that Moses, the Psalmist, Isaiah, Paul, Jesus and God Himself all spoke in King James English.

[Nihil]

75. You mean you *haven't* got an autographed copy?

:-)

Mine has been signed (albeit by one of his children) but if your one
hasn't, maybe try eBay? (But watch out for the Chinese counterfeits!)

> It is because it is the only version of the Bible authorized by God.
> EVERYONE knows that Moses, the Psalmist, Isaiah, Paul, Jesus and
> God Himself all spoke in King James English.

I remember back in the dust of years when a small boy asked his teacher
about this and almost landed a detention when the idea of the "Word of God"
(given in various places across the Middle East) being written *in English*
triggered his sense of humour ...

Mind you, that was before I learned how much of it was created out of whole
cloth in Rome and how much original material was left on the cutting room
floor.

:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

89. Blame Byzantium, not Rome

A lot of people forget that the Roman Catholic Church represents a schism. Orthodox Christians reject as heresy the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. :hi:

When the Christian canon was established, the former capital of the Roman Empire had fallen into disrepair and had largely been relegated to a political backwater. The Patriarch of Rome had primacy only for historical reasons; the real power lay in Constantinople, the new seat of the Empire.

[happyslug]

127. Rome was still the Largest City in the Roman World when Rome turn Christian

Constantinople was a small city at that time (c324 AD). Rome seems to have held its population till at least 410 AD (When it was sacked for three days by the Goths, a time period agreed to by the Senate and the Goths beforehand). Rome seems to have taken a steady decline afterward, but is believe to have been much larger then Constantinople even when the Vandals Sacked it in 460 AD (all of this POST Christianizing of the Empire AND the formation of the Bible under Constantine). Rome's population further declined till during the Italian Wars of the early Sixth Century the Goths then ruling Italy abandoned the City for the Fifth and Final time taking everybody with them. The Roman General then colonized the City with 50,000 (The number he gave, but probably less) people.

Thus Rome even in the Sixth Century was important, through a shadow of what it had been 100 years before. Rome retained this Shadow of its former greatness for the next 1000 years. Constantinople became the largest city for the next 800 years (and maybe longer depending on how large Baghdad became before the Mongols took it in 1250, the Mongols called Baghdad the Largest city they ever took, including the cities of China). Constantinople started to decline after the 1204 Sacking of the City during the Fourth Crusade. Artisans and other people moved from Rome to Constantinople starting in the 300s but most moved either after the 410 Sacking by the Goths or the 60 days sacking by the Vandals in 460 AD. A reversed Movement occurred after 1204, with many of the same type of people moving to the growing Cities of Italy (and starting the Renaissance).

My point here is to state Rome was NOT a backwater when the Empire became Christian during the 300s, it was still the center of the Empire even as the Imperial Court was in Greece. Thus the Pope made no effort to break with Constantinople or Constantinople abandoned the Pope till AFTER the Arab Invasion of the 600s (Which forced Constantinople to look to it Greek Subjects as the basis of Rule, abandoning in reality (Through NOT in Theory) the concept of being "Roman".

[TlalocW]

30. I type so much on crap like this, my fingers are flat

My mother constantly sends me various emails that make the rounds about "taking back America for Christians" or something similar - not because she believes in them, but because most of them come from her religious insane brother, and she knows that I will gladly reply all and give everyone a much needed history/social studies lesson, and I do so enjoy pointing out to the fundies on the list that the Constitution is the law of the land, not the Bible, and they, in theory at least, have no more rights than a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, or Agnostic under it.

TlalocW

[LiberalFighter]

50. You would think they would had stated that the Bible was the law of the land.

But not one mention of the Bible.

[goodhue]

34. most people are wrong

eom

[Maine-ah]

36. I bet that the 55% don't even own a map.

:P

[SKKY]

132. I do. It's called Google Maps.

It's on my computer, laptop, and phone! :P

[tridim]

38. Here's a better, honest poll question..

"The founding fathers purposefully did not write Christianity into the Constitution, do you agree with them?"

I'm sick of these polls that are written specifically to skew the truth. The truth has no political or religious bias, it's just the truth and it's not negotiable.

[Nickster]

42. This is why the "liberal" media is hurting this nation. If people didn't have this crap pounded into

their heads everyday by the talking heads, they'd understand what the Constitution really says. If people actually cared about education, we wouldn't have so many people thinking like this.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the

average American yahoo.

[panzerfaust]

55. Praise THE Lord!

The founders also wanted Bush to not only be king, but to also be head of god's own Church of America: Just like it says in the constitution.

[Trillo]

45. It sounds to me like they are projecting

"narrow" ideals (their religion) into the founding documents, DOI, Constitution, which are written broadly. Since the document supports their right to have those narrow beliefs, perhaps when they read the document they see themselves and their beliefs in it.

I'm sure it doesn't hurt that perception when their religious leaders lie to them about the christian nature of the founding documents. Maybe one day the mass of Christians will wake up and realize their leaders are simply liars.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. We are obviously doing a crappy job teaching history

in our schools.

It's really well past time for our children to be taught well, and for these theocratists to be put in their place.

Scary stuff.

[dysfunctional press]

62. as well as civics.

it's utterly unfathomable to me that civics isn't required or even offered in most school districts anymore.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. It's not? My kid had it, which is good. Although, of course,

as is usual, the parents who would insist the most loudly on having civics taught are also the ones making sure their kids are taught civics thoroughly at home anyway.

[HuffleClaw]

58. meep

that is scary

[Seabiscuit]

60. If this country formed its policy around polls,

we'd have the stupidest theocracy in history on the face of the Earth.

Except, of course, that we would have left Iraq a long time ago.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. And an increase over 1962, when all the kids in my school, hearing of

the Supreme Court decisions said, "There are public schools where they start the day with a prayer? We thought that was just at parochial schools."

The teaching of history has declined and been dumbed down in the U.S., and the fundies have stepped into the vacuum.

[Scout]

68. we need a Constitution in every home, not a Bible.... n/t

[kath]

69. Two very good books about the history of separation of church and state

in the US are:

"The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness" by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore. Published in 1997. An updated edition, pub. in 2005 (which I have not read) is titled "The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State". According to Amazon, this new edition has "a new chapter that explores the role of religion in the public life of George W. Bush's America".

and "Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church & State" by Robert Boston.


(Along the same lines, see also another book by Robert Boston -- "The Most Dangerous Man in America?: Pat Robertson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition")

[bemildred]

70. "Think" just is not the right word here. "Believe" is the right word. nt

[ryanmuegge]

71. Anyone can dig up or create a quote from them

I've seen people from both sides of this debate present quotes as evidence. Really, though, who cares what those fossils thought? A lot of them thought it was cool to have slaves, too. We know better now. This is here and now.

It's been generally regarded for a long time that there should be a strong separation of church and government. It's just common sense for most of us. A few evangelicals like to make this a big issue, but it's not even worth debating with those people. There's no winning because they don't live in the real world.

[NoodleyAppendage]

72. Screw it. If America wants to continue their Holy War then go for it.

Religion is the problem, NOT THE SOLUTION. I'm so friggin' sick of Xtians and their equally CRAZY Muslim counterparts.

HAVE AT IT! Have your STUPID Holy War and be done with it! Destroy the Earth in the names of your mythical cloud being gods...assholes.

J

[Cha]

73. Seperation of Church and State..that doesn't

sound like Christian to me..thankfully.

[hang a left]

76. USA Today...

Now there is a bastion of reality based reporting. :fuckinggetmeanet:

[tom_paine]

77. That is because the Imperial Subjects of Amerika are closer to 1933 Germans

that 1945 Americans in temprement, if not overt mentality.

Just wait and see. I think you'll be quite amazed at what atrocities the Imperial Subjects of Amerika will be able to stubbornly deny and willfully overlook.

You might...but I won't. It's here, just masked by our relative "prosperity".

Amerika has been reprogrammed by the Bushies into something they like better. Just like 1984 prophesied and showed them how to do it.

Ignorance of history is merely one small part of that reprogramming. How can the Bushies repeat it if people REMEMBER?

[Vinca]

80. This particular article confirmed one thing for me:

the level of intelligence of the people calling Washington Journal on the Republican line.:dunce:

[Deja Q]

81. What did Christ teach, and to what extent are people practicing it?

Christianity is more than going to a slant-roof building with a big "T" on top for 90 minutes listening to sermons and singing songs off key with the rest of the congregation, though the fellowship of being with one's fellow society members truly is a valid part of the proceedings as well. That's a reason why I thought about going back; the socialization and fellowship with people.

As for schools, keep all religions out, standardized school uniforms in place, and people there to learn sciences and concepts and to find out what they excel at, and develop them from there. If a student is failing, don't lower the bar, find ways to get them to jump over it or specialize the person to what they are good at so they CAN contribute to a specific standard. (while the repubs have a point in that lowering standards is a bad thing, few on either side wants to step up and offer suggestions to impose regulations to ensure they don't get lowered again; often out of fear of being berated by anybody from either side. Meanwhile, why we offshore countries where there are no standards still baffles me...)

[JPZenger]

88. Puritans Came for Religious Freedom, Then Wouldn't Tolerate Others

Remember the Puritans came to Massachusetts because they could not exercise their religious freedom in Britain. Then they became the most intolerant people concerning the religions of others. Roger Williams was banished to the wilderness for not following Puritanism, and founded Rhode Island. It became a haven for some of the first Jewish settlers.

Maryland was a Catholic colony. Fortunately, William Penn founded Pennsylvania based on the idea of religious freedom for everyone. (By the way, he named the colony after his father, not himself). Penn was a Quaker, whose people were persecuted in Britain.

[Strathos]

91. Here's what I don't understand

I don't deny anyone the right to worship as they please, so why do those that worship want to deny everyone else the right to be who they are?

It's like the fucking invasion of the body snatchers, or the brain snatchers.

Why do religious people think they can control the lives of everyone else, or SHOULD control the lives of everyone else?

[EClark5483]

92. I have a Reverend friend who teaches Theology............

I have a Reverend friend who teaches Theology at a couple of the Catholic schools here in town. Myself, I am a practicing Deist, but, I do live my life by the principals of Christianity. I had a conversation with the Rev about whether one needs to believe Jesus to be a God to be a Christian. To which his answer was NO. Which kind of surprised me at first, but then, like I said, this man teaches Theology and knows his religion well. You can absolutely separate the teachings of Jesus, and even the old testament from what he called certain truths that must be accepted about God.

The initial shock might be hard for some to comprehend, but once you take the aura of "SUPERNATURAL" out of the bible, and replace it with "REASON", the God you find in the Bible can only for the most part, be defined as "THE HOLY GHOST". Remember, one of the things that changed Catholicism and Christianity, was the introduction of the holy trinity. This, along with distorted interpretations, have caused the religious zealot to be the downfall of Christianity, not Christianity in of itself.

I'd rant off the rest of the conversation I had with him, but I don't feel like typing all that... it was a very informative lecture. One that I wish alot of alleged "devoted Christians" could get during Sunday worship services.

[pingzing58]

97. I agree. Because Jesus did not establish a church but a way of life. He did not ever say go to

church. St. Paul created the hierarchy as we know it and he was not one of the twelve, although he calls himself a super apostle. So, I am left with being a disciple of Jesus as opposed to being a member of a Christian institutionalized religion.

[DemBones DemBones]

123. That is direct contradiction of

Catholic theology and he should not be teaching that to Catholic schoolchildren whose Catholic parents are paying for them to have a Catholic education.

Edit: He, and you, and everyone, can believe whatever they like, but if you are hired to teach Catholic theology, you should teach Catholic theology, not your own version of Catholic theology.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

98. sure...

they also wanted "in god we trust" on all it's currency :crazy:

[ProudDad]

107. That was a McCarthy-ite anti-USSR thing

passed in 1955...

When I was born, we weren't yet a christianist theocracy...

[Doctor_J]

99. The MSM and hate radio have been telling them this for 20 years

so it's not that surprising.

[depakid]

141. 20 years of mendacity

and unchallenged propaganda- coupled with 25 years of systematically de-funding education.

Frankly, I'm not surprised at ANYTHING Americans believe.

Its gotten to where its pointless to even show 40% (or more) of them the facts.

[PittPoliSci]

101. most have no understanding of american history...

just what exactly are we teaching in school if we are no longer teaching history or biology?

[Triana]

102. Most think Iraq had something to do with 9-11 too..

...and they are, of course, wrong - and for the same reasons.

[mogster]

108. Polls in the Soviet union probably showed the same trend

Only reversed.
Because of:
Media influence, as the media has taken us all into a different world since 911.
Establishment influence, as the establishment seemingly are christian, due to point 1.
War influence, when war threatens the nation, people find solace in religion - especially when point 1 and 2 are true.

If this isn't all a faked poll, that is. The trend in politics goes the other way, with evangelism losing momentum every day.

[Vidar]

109. Sadly, our schools (I taught for 15 years) pass deists off as Christian.

The founding fathers were deists, accepting God as the "divine watchmaker" who set the universe in motion, but does not intercede in it (cf Aristotle's "uncaused causer"). They were true rationalists, children of the Enlightenment, and would be denounced as "atheistic" by most fundie Bible thumpers, though I highly suspect the Unitarians & a few others would be happy to welcome them.

[sendero]

113. More idiocy...

... from the people who think the earth is 6,000 years old and that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

The stupid will always be with us.

[wickerwoman]

114. Ah... you've given me an excuse to trot out some great quotes I found yesterday.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." -James Madison

"Religions are all alike- founded upon fables and mythologies."
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on men." "The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." -Thomas Jefferson

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." -Thomas Paine

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." -Abraham LIncoln

(Sorry if these are quoted above... I lose my network connection every time I try to "view all"). People who say the U.S. is a "Christian nation" drive me apeshit. How ignorant can you possible be about something you profess to be so proud of: basic U.S. civics?

A little off topic... but I also found my two favorites atheist quotes of all time:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -Denis Diderot

"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile." -Kurt Vonnegut

[Bryn]

116. Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

"What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" - Pope Leo X

"It has served us well, this myth of Christ." - Pope Leo X

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us" - Pope Leo X

edit to say: I know this doesn't have anything to do with USA. I just find Pope Leo X quotes very interesting.

[DemBones DemBones]

124. What's the source of your quotes? nt

[happyslug]

128. Its from Reformation era document that Attacks Pope X as being Unchristian.

For more see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X

[Orsino]

133. "Mission Accomplished" for Big Money's War on Education.

Now we believe nearly anything they tell us...or we'll believe it long enough for them to get even richer.

[and-justice-for-all]

136. Not a Xtian Nation...

If this country was to be established as a xtian nation. then you would think that they would have written that language into the Constitution. gawd however or any religious language and/or meaning, is absent from the document which is the law of the land.

[WindRavenX]

137. Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

Good gawd. We truly are a nation of idiots.

[sjdnb]

142. Most Americans can't

find Pakistan (or, most other countries outside of the US, Mexico or Canada) on an unlabeled map of the world, have no concept of WORLD History beyond the myths they've been taught (aka 'Thanksgiving', Manifest Destiny, Cowboys (the good guys) vs Indians, etc.), AND they still believe Saddam had a hand in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and/or WMDs, even though, everyone now, including the Bush Administration, now acknowledges that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, had no WMDs.

Fact is, Americans believe/study just what they need to to allow themselves to feel good about their country. Any other facts that might impair their ability to believe in the 'shining country on a hill' myth are discarded - even if they are irrefutable facts.