Posted by
Eric
at
11:42 AM
George Washington had this to say in his farewell address, 1796....
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
"Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."
And from where does enlightenment come? From secular knowledge alone? Or is it that, as Washington stated, Enlightenment is founded upon religion and morality. Do intellectual pursuits and honesty suffer because of the public acknowledgement of Religion and Morality? Of God? Or is it that such intellectual pursuits and honesty are dependent upon Religion and Morality?
So what has happened in the last 211 years that has so changed the philosophy of our founding principles? Have we become more enlightened? To the point that we realized Religion and Morality are hinderances? Or have we adopted strange gods? Marxism. Multi-culturalism. Among others.
How has modern enlightenment managed to convince itself that it does not need religion or morality... or God? How have we gotten to the place where the ACLU can claim a painting of Jesus in a St. Tammany parish Courthouse is unConstitutional? How is such a painting unConstitutional now, when Men like George Washington and our founding fathers clearly believed otherwise?
How long will America continue to be free if Americans don't even know the history of their nations founding, and the principles upon which it was built? How have we allowed the ACLU and Liberalism to so distort the Constitution to the point that America may well not survive?
We have the freedoms we enjoy today BECAUSE of Religion and Morality. Because the men and women who fought for this nation held strongly to those two pillars. But sappers have been at the foundation for almost a century, and their work is nearly complete.
George Washington would not recognize America today. He would likely weep for the dehumanization of the unborn, and a lack of religious knowledge and morality in this once great nation. What good is education in America if it neglects Religion and Morality?
Enjoy your fourth of July. And pray for this nation.
44 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We've been through this before. The nation was founded largely on enlightenment principles. Many were Christian in 1776, but since then we've become more Christian, not less.
Washington would weep at the ridiculous things some of our leaders have done, like attacking a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, but not at our lack of religiosity.
I'm off to our street parade. Happy 4th.
"It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6]."
Good try, Solomon and Bent. The revisionists have done a good job of convincing those of you that want to think this nation was not founded on Christianity, but the truth is otherwise.
There were Christians among the founding fathers, like Washington. But the country was certainly not founded upon Christianity.
The founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was largely based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism.
Many of the greatest founding patriots were opposed to Christianity. Thomas Paine dismissed Christianity and the bible as false, and condemned many traditional Christian doctrines as fundamentally immoral.
And here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight. 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...we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this..."
As is proven by our current age of megachurches, a born-again president who thinks God appointed him, and domination of all levels of government by Christians, Jefferson was too optimistic.
Nice sounding words. Perhaps Washington and the founding fathers would weep at abortion, I don't know. Most of them did not shed a tear over the slave trade, that is, dehumanization of the "born."
If they were suddenly transported here, I would imagine, other than our modern society, the acceptance of minorities as equal citizens would likely be the most daunting development for them to accept.
Patrick Henry (May 29, 1736 – June 6, 1799)
On March 6, 1789, President Adams called for a national day of fasting and prayer for the country could “call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgression, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience. . .”
"We recognize no sovereign but God, and no king but Jesus!"
James Adams ( This also became the battle cry of the Revolutionary War)
Christopher Columbus sailed west because he believed (contrary to popular belief at the time) the earth was round because the Bible said it was. He sailed west hoping to get to the east (India) so he could bring the Gospel to them.
This country was discovered because of the desire to spread the Gospel.
This country was founded for the same reason.
One of the first Acts of Congress was to print Bibles to send with missionaries going out to bring the Gospel to the Indians.
The first public school textbook was the Bible - in fact public schools were started so that people could learn to read the Bible.
Was every single person connected with the founding of the country a Christian? No. But that does not change the fact that America was founded on Christianity, whether you want that to be true or not.
Harvard was founded on Christianity. Yale was founded on Christianity.
There are so many references in history to the Christian heritage of this country, including references to Jesus Christ Himself, that it's not really even worth arguing with someone over it. Just because the founding fathers weren't 100% Christian doesn't mean this country wasn't founded on those principles.
"Many Americans today have been taught that our revolutionary ideals came from European Enlightenment thinkers....those who were skeptics and those who continued to acknowledge God. Early American historian George Bancroft pointed out that it was the Christian Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu who influenced our founders, not those like Voltaire who had forsaken God:
'The age could have learnt, from the school of Voltaired, to scoff at its past; but the studious and observing Montesquieu discovered 'the title deeds of humanity',as they lay buried under the rubbish of privileges, conventional charters, and statutes....He saw....that Christianity, which seems to aim only at the happiness of another life, also constitutes man's blessedness in this [one].'
It was these Christian Enlightenment thinkers, Montesquieu and Locke, along with the legal philosopher, Sir William Blackstone, who most influenced American political thinking during the founding era."
It would be difficult to find an instance where someone from that founding era was not raised and educated with some semblance of Christian teaching. Thus, they could not help but view the world through that lense, and further, to craft and institute a new nation with any other influence to guide them.
As to the slavery issue, slavery was commonplace at that time in human history, with most parts of the world still practicing it in some form. When this issue comes up in discussions of Christian "crimes", it's helpful to remember that the Bible speaks mostly in terms of how a Christian treats a slave or acts as a slave. Also, it was a widespread belief that different races weren't fully human. It looks bad from the perspective of the 21st Century, and it is of course, but you can't judge them from our perspective. Different perspectives for different times.
These are just the physical wonders. When our revived Washington observed modern social interactions the shock would probably kill him again. Washington new nothing of suffrage not to mention women's liberation. The modern idea of a classless society. Even the idea of newspaper editorials would shock him.
The world has changed so much since Washington's time. It is amazing the words written more than 200 years ago still apply to today, "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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ..." In those words we can hears echoes of that long ago culture, and find answers for the problems of today. What great men the founders of our country were, in their wisdom and courage.
Here's more logic for you unbelievers, although it holds no relevance for you:
Did you ever consider why the first sentence in the first amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, or the free exercise thereof"?
Why do you suppose they chose to make that the very first issue to address in the amendments? Was it just coincidence? Did they choose that issue at random? Or do you suppose they felt that was the most important point to make to King George?
Remember, the colonists originally came to America to escape religious persecution and were mainly rebelling against the King's insistence that every British citizen be required to worship in the Church of England.
Much the same way Liberals are trying to create laws that require us to worship the church of Liberalism, under penalty of ostracizm.
Re: slavery. The founding fathers knew that slavery was at odds with their vision of equality and liberty. They debated it strenuously when writing the Declaration and Constitution. But it was just too much a part of the economy- especially on the plantations in the south- to undo at a single stroke. The issue threatened to divide the nation before it was even fully formed, with southern states threatening to secede.
Some of the founding fathers were racists, some were not. Jefferson is one of my heroes, and he believed that blacks were inferior.
I don't really hold that against them. As MA notes, they were men of their times. Despite their failings, they accomplished a great deal. They remain heroes to me.
But it's a good lesson to note where they came up short and left certain issues for future generations to resolve (unfortunately, through the Civil War). It's a good lesson that even the greatest visionaries can be flawed.
Personally, I don't want a Theocracy in this nation. I have too many images of the Dark Ages of the Roman Catholic Church to ever want a Theocracy here. Who honestly wants Democrats in charge of Religious expression in this country, look what they've ALREADY done! Besides, you can't MAKE anyone believe in God... ANY god. Man cannot believe in God on his own anyway. Yet all of this is beside the point. As Mark pointed out, our Constitution clears states, "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, or the free exercise thereof."
Too many people on both the Left AND Right are clinging to the Establishment Clause, while tossing out the Free Exercise clause-- and squashing Christian liberty while being overtly accepting of others. It's primarily a Liberal agenda, but I won't argue that here. So while all these people claim a "Separation" exists (where none actually does), they make almost Criminal worship of God Almighty (the Christian God), and Jesus, His only begotten, while at the same time demanding we be more tolerant of other religions.
This is not only unConstitutional, it is a GREAT hypocrisy. To squash Christian expression when our Founding documents so clearly defends it.
Again, our Constitution doesn't allow for a Theocracy. But neither does it insist upon a godless state akin to Slalin's Soviet gulag. The Declaration of Independence is a testament to what the signers believed about God, and their-- and consequently "our" --proper relationship toward him. And the Constitution reaffirms the Declaration of Independence.
The "Theocracy" rhetoric is bogus. It's a smokescreen for something else I don't have time at present to address. So... No Theocracy. I don't want one, and I dare say neither does Mark or Ms Green. All we want is to be able to honor our God our Faith and our traditions without government standing in our way at, seemingly, every juncture. Which violates the very Constitution government claims to defend.
No, I understand the argument completely, based on these words:
Solomon: The nation was founded largely on enlightenment principles.
Bent: Our founding fathers had a much wider view of religion than you.
Solomon: But the country was certainly not founded upon Christianity
Solomon: The founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was largely based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism.
Based on these statements, you are both saying that this country was not based on Christianity. And you are wrong. Nothing you say will change that fact.
This country was founded on Christianity. What it was NOT founded on was any particular DENOMINATION of Christianity. The founding fathers did not envision a land of heathens, Hindus, Muslims, etc. etc. co-existing with the Christians. They envisioned a land where Christians of all denominations could worship and practice their faith in God, their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, without persecution from a state-run church, as was the case in Europe.
See http://noblather.blogspot.com/2006/07/was-this-nation-founded-on.html
Wow. So it's OK to persecute Muslims, Hindus, and "heathens" for their beliefs?
So I can be legally persecuted? How about Jews? Who gets to decide?
But wait a minute... why no mention of Christ or Christianity in the Declaration or Constitution?
And I guess the treaty with Tripoli (negotiated in 1796 and signed in 1997 ) was in error?
From the treaty:
"...The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
(Excerpted and paraphrased background): The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). The treaty was forwarded to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams' signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording about Christianity never raised the slightest concern.
So here we have a clear affirmation by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. The treaty clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers.
"Nothing you say will change that fact."
No, no fact will ever change your mind.
How do you get from this:
"The founding fathers did not envision a land of heathens, Hindus, Muslims, etc. etc. co-existing with the Christians."
to this:
"Wow. So it's OK to persecute Muslims, Hindus, and "heathens" for their beliefs?"
Sheesh! If you're going to project, project something nice!
And speaking of projecting, you've inspired me to do some reading and I found some cool details. The exerpt of the Treaty of Tripoli you've used...
"...The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
does not end in a period. This mistake apparently is commonly made by those who are attempting to make the same point as are you. Now, I neglected to jot down the rest, which is no biggie since you know where to find it, but the salient point is that this treaty, crafted at a point when we had no Navy to protect merchant ships, was meant to convey to the Muslim terrorists that we weren't THAT kind of Christian nation (Crusaders, Ferdinand & Isabella, etc.) that, from the Muslim perspective, had persecuted them over the years. But also, it merely points out the fact that we have a secular government, which of course, is not the same as a secular nation. With this in mind, it's not surprising that the language "never raised the slightest concern."
So to speak of the founding of the nation, one needs to be specific and distinguish between that and the founding of the government. The government was intended to be secular, or more to the point, without the ability to "establish" a religion, yet many, if not most of the states had some form of established religion or state sponsored denomination. I did read the link you provided and it speaks of what seems to be cherry-picked quotes and such. For example, it speaks of Madison being in support of separation. But as I researched a little further, it turns out that his separationist views developed toward the end of his life. During his younger days, when he was involved with the founding of the country, he was 180 degrees opposite and quite in favor of the meshing of religion and religion.
However, I have to say that I've never gotten the impression that any such "meshing" supported by the founders or anyone else meant a theocratic form of government. Rather, it was felt by most that there should be as thorough an immersion into Christianity as possible so that there would always be a large pool from which to choose leaders of good moral and upright character. It was felt that this new style government wouldn't work for people devoid of such character. This is not to say that our ancestors were like Apostles after the Ascension, but that they understood character and morality as being a product of a good Christian understanding and that our country benefits greatly as a result. I agree.
As to just how Christian these people were, study only that which offers plenty of exerpts from their thousands of writings and speeches still in existence.
No, no fact will ever change your mind.
Opinions are negotiable and changeable. Facts are not. A typical liberal reaction to a fact is to try to turn it into an opinion.
The result of such a government would be chaos.
This is in response to your statement, "And you are wrong. Nothing you say will change that fact." You have presented no buttresses to your assertions about the founding of this country beyond a second-hand account of George Washington's beliefs. Bring direct quotes or official documents if you want me to seriously consider your opinion that the founding fathers wanted to craft a specifically Christian nation.
Here's the full line from the treaty: 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.
Still plain as day. And are you suggesting Adams et al. lied out of fear?
Wouldn't this have at least stirred some debate in Senate?
Mark:
You're proving my point. I have very good reason to be wary. And where the hell do you get this self worship BS???
Geez, if you're going to project, at least project something nice!
As for lack of moral law, it's your side that thinks it's dandy to torture. THAT'S immoral.
And Ms. "As long as we have the 2nd Amendment" Green:
Stop acting like Christians are persecuted or in the minority. You are in the majority, you run every friggin branch of the government. Chill out.
Hmmm..
A Christian may reside in the White House but it can't honestly be said that Christendom in America runs George W. Bush.
The Senate? Last I checked Mister Reid runs that place, and as for the House... yeah, Pelosi's in charge over there. Both Democrats by the way, One of them decidedly NOT Christian.
The Judiciary? Hmmm. If Christians ran that Roe would be as dead as 47 million babies. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Not a single Christian among them.
Chill, Sol. Your fear of Christians is not only unwarranted, it's.... bizarre!
I actually have, but you just haven't bothered evidently to read them.
"Bring direct quotes or official documents if you want me to seriously consider your opinion..."
At this point, I really don't care if you consider my opinion or not. As for facts, you can accept them or reject them - it doesn't change them. There are scores of other documents and writings that prove the basis upon which our country was founded as well, if you bother to do the research.
A typical liberal reaction to a fact is to try to turn it into an opinion.
Nothing left to say on this subject for me. As Mark would say, it's casting pearls before swine. (and no, I'm not calling anyone a pig - it's a figure of speech guys)
I do worry about people who want to restrict my rights based on their beliefs, tho.
And my main point was that all this whining about how Christians are persecuted is rather silly, since they are the majority in this country and YES, the majority in congress, the courts, and the executive branch are Christian. Maybe they wouldn't choose the same church as you, but they are Christian nonetheless.
You can think the "whining" is silly, but I'll just refer you to David Limbaugh's "Persection---How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity". Tons of case studies regarding the stifling of religious expression.
I worry about those who'd restrict my rights based on their beliefs, too. Like the belief that I'm not mature and responsible enough to carry a pistol. Like McCain/Feingold which is based on the belief that money's the problem in Washington, when it's greedy politicians that are. Like not being able to speak of the downside of state sanctioning of homosexuality because of the mistaken belief that there's nothing at all wrong with it. I won't belabor the point further.
"Still plain as day. And are you suggesting Adams et al. lied out of fear?" No, and yes. As I tried to get across, the intention was to impress upon the scumbags that there is no Christian mandate in our government over which they should be concerned. There's nothing there that compells us to attack the scumbags because their Islamic scumbags. That's pretty much the point. And yes, there was indeed fear there. They were spending literally millions, a "jizya", protection money, to prevent further scuttling of American merchant ships and the kidnapping of their crews. Once they developed a Navy, they went and kicked ass, and the treaty was basically void.
"And where the hell do you get this self worship BS???"
Don't kid yourself. You may have forsaken God, but you worship something. Everyone does, whether they put the word to it or not.
"it's your side that thinks it's dandy to torture." No. We think it might sometimes be necessary to find out from the only guy who knows, the info we need to prevent Solomon from getting his head hacked off.
And BTW, I not only read the whole Treaty, but I read a ton of background stuff. Fascinating history there. Thanks for the turn-on. I just didn't stop at your link.
We live in a huge, pluralistic society- 300 million.
Propagandists like Limbaugh can easily find examples to make anyone feel threatened.
Books like that (on the left AND right) are like junk food- they appeal to prejudice, emotion, and preconceived beliefs, and are devoid of any real informational value.
Your complaints don't amount to a hill of beans compared to blacks as recently as the 1960's or gays today or my Chilean friend who's an American citizen but is treated like sh*t in his new home in Eastern Washington state because people think he's a Mexican.
And to suggest that Adams and the Senate lied about the founding to appease Muslims but didn't even argue over that part of the text is absurd.
Note that Article 11 didn't even appear in the Arabic version!!!
The only version that mattered to the Muslims was the Arabic version. The only version that mattered to the US was the signed, ratified English version.
Why put a cowardly passage in the English version just to appease people who would never read it?
And don't give me that "forsaken
God" and "self worship" BS. I was raised in a protestant church and know far more about your beliefs than you do mine. Your rhetoric is just silly.
Glad you liked reading about the treaty.
The truth is that we live in a large society, as segment of which likes to trumpet pluralism as a goal. Not everyone, and I'd wager more than half, would agree.
I find it typical that you would label someone with whom you don't want to agree, Limbaugh in this case, a propagandist. If by that term you mean he seeks to persuade others of something that isn't true, then I'd have to say that you a) haven't read the book, and b) fancy yourself some kind of mind reader. I don't know how else you could insist that he isn't merely putting forth facts that indicate a real trend. In fact, I'd not be surprised if Limgaugh said your mother was a woman, that you'd call that propaganda as well.
My statements regarding the Treaty are not absurd if you read more than your leftist sources. The most important goal was to stop the attacks on our merchant ships. And how do you know what's in the Arabic version? Do you read Arabic? Why would Article 11 not be in both versions? Why would each version not be the same Treaty in two languages? How freakin' stupid is that? Who the hell would sign it if they thought the versions didn't match? I don't buy it. If they don't match, what is being agreed to?
You're going to have to do more than pull out selected anecdotes to convince me there is some sort of christian persecution going on in a country that is 80% christian.
It's historical fact about the english and arabic versions. Do some research.
It took weeks to cross the ocean, translators were few, different versions of the treaty floated around, whatever. If you want to do the research to find out why there were differences between english and arabic versions, be my guest.
The fact remains, it was presented to the senate, ratified, signed by adams, and printed in full in newspapers of the day with no record of article 11 raising eyebrows, spurring debate, or causing public outcry.
And, it's a short treaty, so almost impossible to read and overlook Article 11.
No, he's a propagandist because he is a partisan and manipulates emotions, appealing to fears and base instincts to promote a simplistic view of good and evil, us and them, using one-sided rhetoric.
People on the left do it too. I consider Michael Moore a propagandist.
Sometimes there is more than a grain of truth in the message of a propagandist. But generally they are good at rallying their base (especially the gullible ones), while doing little to really inform.
There is nothing complex about good and evil. The differences and distinctions are quite 'Simplistic'
"...while doing little to really inform."
You've obviously spent little time actually 'listening' to Limbaugh. Besides which, Marshall referenced DAVID Limbaugh, not Rush. We can project to David's brother if you wish, but the two men, despite similar DNA and parentage, are two different men.
And yes, I was speaking about David.
Once again, at the time of the Treaty, the point was to stop the terrorism. I suspect that if the Treaties were different, then two things are possible: 1) Most likely they were unaware at the time, or 2) They knew once a Navy was ready all bets were off, as was the case as it turned out. Also, it still only speaks of the government as not being founded on Christianity, but the nation was. Two different animals.
Next, you call Limbaugh a propagandist because you don't like what he says. If his message provokes fear or anger, it's more likely that those are appropriate responses for the data presented. It doesn't mean that his goal is to provoke fear for the sake of provoking fear. A wake up call is a better description of what his book provides.
Now if you are using the word "propaganda" in it's cold, clinical definition, that's one thing. But if you use it to dismiss what Limbaugh says, then you are totally off base. He's not distorting anything, he's not, as BenT would suggest, highlighting isolated incidents for the sake of making a case that doesn't really exist. The book is quite thick and the incidents of anti-Christian behavior are numerous, while not being conclusive. These cases are a result of the blatant push by those on the left to deepen an imagined separation not intended by the founders. It has left many confused when faced with religious situations that they prohibit any such activity just to play it safe.
One more thing for Ben,
The level or degree of intolerance or discrimination is hardly a defense. That it happens at all, and it happens far too often with great frequency is unAmerican and wrong.
Marshall it is clear from your words you believe Christians are some sort of special people exempt from the laws the rest of the minorities must obey. The compromises we must make to keep from living in a Mad Max movie. The number of times at work I have had to stifle my voice when my coworkers speak about atheists or those who aren't christian. The way I am looked upon when people ask what church I go to. I am personally discriminated against when Captain D's offers 10% off on Sundays if you come in with a church bulletin. I suffer through continuous propaganda from christians all through November and December. You think you are persecuted because "some" christian, somewhere could pray as loudly as he wanted to.
You go try to live a day in a country where christians are the minority and then say you are discriminated against in the USA.
Do you know how many patriotic songs reference a creator I have doubts about? How can I affirm my patriotism singing "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" and "America the Beautiful"?
Marshall, read again my comment. I also said I also considered Michael Moore a propagandist. That, despite the fact that I agree with much of his overall position. I just don't like the one-sided and rhetorical way Limbaugh and Moore present their views. Smart readers draw from much more balanced, scholarly, and thoughtful sources than these guys.
This culture war crap is just all simplistic demonization of one side, turning people with honest disagreements into enemies. Books promoting it read a lot like Mein Kampf.
What you believe to be clear from my words are simply your perception tainted by your distaste for things religious. How sad. How you can pull the stuff you do from my comments is beyond my ability to discern. Of course Christians ARE special in that many of them will spend eternity with the Lord, but exempt from laws? Where are you getting this from?
If you think your job's in jeopardy for defending your atheism, there are protections for that sort of thing. If you are unwilling or unable to defend yourself, then I guess you have only two options: appeal to their Christian sensibilities, or shut up. I don't see any other alternative for you. What church do you go to? Try this: "I haven't found one to my liking just yet. Perhaps one day I'll check out yours. Perhaps not. It's kinda personal, ya know?" You wouldn't be lying. Then add, "Why don't you bring me your bulletins after church?" Your Captain D example is NOT discrimination. It's no different than "Mention my name and get 10% off." You hear that on radio shows all the time. Those that don't listen don't get the discount. And you live in a Christian nation. If you think you're "suffering", you need help. See someone. But none of what you say can negate the fact that Christians are being stifled from engaging in the public sphere.
Moore's a pig. That you name his crime doesn't get you any points. Putting him in the same box as Limbaugh is nonsense. There's no comparison. Moore's stuff is routinely shown to be distortions and half-truths. Limbaugh's book, the one I mentioned, has not the same criticisms. You don't like the guy, I feel certain. I'd wager against you having read his book.
There is no doubt that there is a concerted effort to marginalize religious thought and speech in this country. That the religious speak out against such things is not reported equally with the reason for their concerns. They are sumarily dismissed. Step back for a while and watch. You'll see it happening all the time.
Every movement needs an enemy, and people like him set about manufacturing one. He uses anecdote to create a caricature of liberalism for pawns like you to fear and loathe.
If you see his writing as fair, original, and informative, there's no point in even discussing it further. You've been brainwashed by an ideology, you are incapable of critical thought.
Now, as far as your bogus claim that Christians are being forced out of the "public sphere." For once and for all, BULLSH*T!
I work at an ecology research institute- a pretty liberal place. We put up a Christmas tree every year. We exchange Christmas gifts. We call them Christmas gifts. We say "Merry Christmas" to everyone. Everyone on my block puts up Christmas lights, including me.
Try this: instead of putting up "Jesus is the reason for the season" on your roof, put up "God is a myth." I've never tried it myself, but I'll wager your windows don't make it to New Year's.
Try this: declare yourself an atheist get elected to any public office in this country.
YOU ARE NOT MARGINALIZED! STOP CRYING WOLF!
Christmas is recognized as more than a religious holiday. That non-Christians would continue to celebrate it hardly means acceptance of the faith. Once again, get real. Open your eyes and look around.
I read liberal opinions and scratch my head. Can't tell where they are heading and they can't remember where we have been.
MA accused Dan of purposefully missing the point on another thread.
Yet, he seemed to purposefully dodge my point by saying "why would I put up a lie on my roof?" I'm sure he recognized that my question was a rhetorical one, and I wasn't actually suggesting he put a sign on his roof.
Ultimately, my point was to refute MA's claim that Christians are "stifled from engaging in the public sphere." I was giving evidence that Christians are free (under the law, in our culture, and in the political realm) to proclaim their beliefs publicly. In fact it benefits them, I believe, in the cultural and political spheres. It's darn near impossible to be elected to a national office without being a Christian or at least a Jew, and almost completely impossible being an atheist.
So atheists are less free in the political realm to proclaim their beliefs than Christians, at least if they want to stay in that realm.
The point about the roof was that atheists are less free in our culture to loudly proclaim their beliefs than Christians.
I am not complaining, just saying that his constant claims of being persecuted are really unfounded compared to just about any other religious group in the country.
Have I answered your question?
Every year, some conservative pundits trot out the bogus claim of a liberal "war on Christmas." It helps them make their argument that Christians are marginalized.
They use anecdotes to support their claims. But in a country of 300 million, who can't come up with some examples of silliness on either side of the political spectrum?.
In reality, Christmas is alive and well, and cheerfully and openly celebrated. Even by liberal atheists like me and my friends.