Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24:

The Shock Doctrine and disaster capitalism are a lot more precise concepts than this. The idea behind the Shock Doctrine isn't that all conceptions of left and right are a distraction from the so-called "real" issues, it's where you foment a series of national crises in order to subvert the mechanisms of democracy in order to implement radical policies that would only be acquiesced to when people were in a state of shock.

In the case of disaster capitalism, you actually get a nice feedback loop. Deregulate markets, newly deregulated markets crash and create an economic crisis, and new "reforms" which further deregulate markets are proposed as the solution to the crisis created by the last round of deregulation. See all economic policy proposed by Republicans since the 1980's for examples.

There's also a burden of proof fallacy at work here. 3 cherry-picked quotes from Bush and Kerry on Iraq does not a conspiracy make. The political divide in the country in 2004 over Iraq clearly had the "stay forever" and "get out now" poles to it. That the Democratic candidate was moderate and said merely "don't stay forever", is more a sign of there being a right-wing conspiracy rigging elections and corrupting the Democratic party, not that the very idea of left and right having policy disagreements is some sort of elaborate distraction.

The thing I'm sensing in a lot of liberals these days is the sense that even when we win elections, we're still pretty much getting Republican policies rammed down our throats. We're even doing this thing where we Occupy places in protest of the 1% corrupting our political process and subverting the will of the people...

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Clearly false. Yet that's the whole thrust of the video!



With regard to your last two paragraphs, I think we're starting to move away from straightforward commentary on the video. But that's alright with me, if it's okay with you.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

Nonetheless, this is something separate from moral authority. One may deny that there is anything correct about the metaphysical pronouncements of the Bible, and still accept that its moral teachings are profoundly important. This is precisely what philosophy Slavoj Zizek has done.

For most other religions, the number of specific propositions that must be accepted is few to none. Pronouncements about gods or salvation are amenable to multiple interpretations. The ancient Greek philosophers, for instance, were quite religious on the whole. Yet read a book on Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Platonism, and tell me what proposition about the gods that they agree on. You'll find it quite difficult.

The same can be said of Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, Western Pagan revivals, etc.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

>> ^shveddy:

@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.

>> ^messenger:
Thanks for your answers. As to the first, could you suggest then which variety of Christianity a prospective Christian might find the right support to really know Jesus? Evangelical? Mormonism? CofE?

You're welcome. Every denomination has its flaws and failings, some more than others. Neither is every church in every denomination the same. I am non denominational yet I attend an AOG church. I don't agree with all of their doctrine but the pastor teaches on solid biblical principles. I would recommend that a prospective Christian start to seek the Lord out through a private bible study. Based on that, they could move on to attending services in town and seeing what fits or where they are led, or a bible study with other Christians. I would recommend they avoid any church that teaches sacraments, cults like JW, 7th day Adventists, Mormonism, and the church of christ. Look for a church that teaches from the bible, and focuses on Jesus and sanctification.

>> ^messenger:
To the second, did you sincerely try to have a relationship with God through any other religion, or was your church the first one you really dedicated yourself to?

Yes, I did explore many of the various belief systems, philosophies, and religions of the world. I was seeking God at the time and He led me through most of them, giving me clues along the way, which eventually led me to Jesus Christ.

Zimmerman should hope they release a lot of information done by both white and black investigators from all over. If he doesn't get some very public information showing that they can't find evidence to arrest him or put him before a jury and convince them. The only thing that is going to allow him to live any sort of life after this is that kind of public release with many of the investigators involved saying the same exact thing....no discrepancies and no one better be left saying the police didn't interview them. No one should say the security cameras were not checked. No one should say phone records were not collected. The botched investigation has at much to do with the outrage as Zimmerman chasing down Trayvon and killing him. If the investigation were done properly there would not be all of this doubt and intrigue around the case, buy they know they screwed up, otherwise they would have come forward with the information instead of getting outside investigations into it. Or someone knows they screwed up, and ordered it that way to cover their ass.


The racism part of it will never be satisfied to any sort of middle ground for most people...just is not going to happen at this point.

If they fail to do all of this one more time, Zimmerman will be screwed. I don't even think witness protection would keep people from recognizing him for quite awhile after this, if he could get it.

And shang, I don't believe you. I've seen other people say a lot of these things and anything they point to gets debunked a day later.

If they had eye witness reports of Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, they would not have news reports saying there is about a minute of unknown sequence of events between the 911 call ending and a witness seeing Zimmerman on his back with Trayvon on top.

Trayvon has no arrest record that has ever come out. There ARE people making claims that he has a "criminal activity record", making it sounds like a police record. But when questioned the best they can come up with is that the school suspended him for....... and even a lot of that is made up and debunked after the news "breaks" it and they have to retract their claims. Zimmerman has 4 case records, 2 are related to him having an encounter with an officer where he got PTD. 2 are related to domestic violence case in civil court. So he has been arrested and taken what amounts to a "get your shit straight or be found guilty" program in lieu of trial for it being his first offense.

According to a witness, Zimmerman was not found on the ground when police arrived. He was standing over Trayvon just moments after he shot him. Police found him this way. Otherwise, Trayvon would have been laying on top of him if he was still found on the ground..since Trayvon was on top of him during the fight and supposedly when he shot and killed him.

SYG has stipulations for home defense in line with Castle Doctrine, but it does not apply here unless they have unreleased information saying that he was trying to defend his vehicle. I am of the opinion that Trayvon Martin should be covered under SYG, but I won't post all that here...it's in another sift on here regarding TYT covering the case.

@shang

What a load of shit. There are ZERO verifiable witness reports that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is anecdotal bullshit allegedly said by a person named "John". No last name. No written statement. Not that it even matters. What human being would not defend himself (after trying to run away) against a stranger chasing them with a gun?

And I would love to see these official documents that show that Martin was a convicted rapist. Please link them. They don't exist. You are a liar spreading lies about a dead kid and you should be ashamed of yourself. Even if they did exist, it still doesn't matter because that has nothing to do with what happened.

Again, to make it clear, even if Martin was a drug addicted rapist on the loose, Zimmerman was STILL in the wrong. He clearly had no idea of those alleged facts, and that is obvious from the 911 tape. He didn't say "there is a known rapist in my neighborhood", in what was his 46th call to the police over "suspicious" people.

I don't know what castle doctrine has to do with any of this either. Does castle doctrine give you the right to chase after a fleeing person and shoot them off of your property? At no time was Martin on Zimmerman's property and at no time was Zimmerman in danger when he initiated pursuit. Which he was advised to not do by the police. The 'Stand Your Ground' law does not give you the right to pursue either. Pretty self evident from the god damn name of the law. STAND YOUR GROUND. Not, chase after unarmed kid who poses no physical threat to you.

Quoting JEB BUSH now regarding this:
"stand your ground" doesn't apply to this case."Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back"

Zimmerman created the entire incident on his own.


edit ... Oh, I forgot there was a sift here. Yeah, this black panther bullshit doesn't help anything. They are fucking racists too.

Then we'll have to have a same reward for the capture of anyone that harms Zimmerman.

of course I'm in the Zimmerman camp, over on ATS several eyewitness reports that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, plus arrest records leaked by anon Trayvon not only a drug addict but a convicted rapist, attacked Zimmerman and cut him up pretty bad, Zimmerman was found bloody on the ground.

I've pulled a gun on a tresspasser before but never had to use it thankfully. But I support Zimmerman 100%

Course I also live in a state that has Castle Doctrine or Castle Law on the books, that gives citizens rights to use deadly force not only on house trespass but property if you are threatened.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era...
They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare...
I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Thank you, that was largely how I understood things to be within the tribal regions as well.

I have troubles with calling the tribal regions not really part of Pakistan when it's pointed out how bad some of the boys there are, but later when an American drone kills some of those bad boys in that region it is a gross affront to Pakistan's national sovereignty. It's either part of Pakistan or it's not, and if it is part of Pakistan and America is supposed to mind it's business what is America expected to do when the bad boys from that tribal region keep killing Americans and more importantly and in even greater numbers the moderate Pakistani's who are the closest America has to true allies in the region.


Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family.

I'd argue that they never really bothered anyone because they'd largely been getting what they wanted. That's not the kind of problem that gets better just because you keep giving the extremists what they want. It leads to a situation where a guy like Osama can find enough friends to hide within a mile of the very Military Academy that Musharraf graduated from. I firmly do not accept that the 'war on terror' created the problem, it just forced it to be recognized and dealt with.

Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

Agreed on both counts. As far as America is concerned it's more cost effective to just reset the clock in Afghanistan every so often so the problems there are kept localized and not something that will bother them for another decade. It's a twisted game and I desperately want to see real solutions embraced that will see the moderate locals have a real chance at being the victors in the end instead of the perpetual victims.

Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

I'd say the Saudi's are even worse. They've spent billions of dollars in Pakistan's tribal regions setting up jihadi training camps and calling them 'schools'. Regrettably the male only students come out illiterate but well trained in extremist Wahhabi doctrines and guerrilla warfare. The Saudi 'charities' have spent more money on 'education' in these tribal areas than Pakistan's own government and have been doing since long, long before the 'war on terror' ever was recognized by the West or Pakistan. That building block of an internal war against Pakistan itself has been building for a long time and without the hard push Bush made I firmly believe that would still be official Pakistani policy. The situation would be worse and when ever the militants decided to start pushing it would have been far more unpleasant than what Pakistan has faced so far from those elements.

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

I would honestly love to take you up on that. My kids are a bit young but I do hope to make it over there someday. I too believe you guys are a great bunch in a bad situation, the road out of it though is just so long, difficult and nasty. I wish all of you there the best of luck and honestly spend a lot of time trying to understand what is happening there and what small part little old me can play.

It's not that hard actually. You just need to realize that the very human behavior of faith is not intrinsically bad, and that the atrocities committed in the name of one religious doctrine or another are ultimately not caused by religion but tribalism. Humans are tribal by nature, and whether they segregate based on geography, ideology, religion, skin color, hair color, or nail color, it's all the same thing in the end - us against them. Millions of years of evolution bred that instinct deep into our DNA. A few hundred thousand years of evolution has given us brains capable of self examination. Give the species a little time to catch up. Sooner or later we'll realize that not only are we all part of a singular species, we're part of a singular universe.

In reply to this comment by therealblankman:
Her belief in God and Jesus forms the core of her being and I must say that I personally would be more tolerant of the sins of the Christian faith, both past and present, if there were more like her in the world, rather than those who use their Christian faith as a platform and excuse to project their hate and judgement.

The cave only contains what you bring with you.

Sadly that video was dead so I couldn't see it. I would like to ask how you actually go about verifying spirituality.

Spirituality may be a real experience, but that does not mean that it is actually real. Paranoia is a real experience too.

Faith is a virus in many ways (obviously not biologically), but it acts as one. That said. you can say that for any meme.

Twisting religion and/or faith for "evil" is easy - anything can be twisted. The fundamental problem is that at the very core, religion is, well, bad. It's detrimental for the human race. We would be in a better place without it. By no means perfect, other factors are at work, tribalism, fanaticism, greed, etc. but nonetheless, it would be a better place, because you could not justify your evil actions through a supreme being. Do you realize how dangerous it is when someone is absolutely convinced they are right? Skepticism is a healthy attribute in a benign society. Spirituality (moreso religion and faith) is detriment to that.

When people argue "oh, look at all the culture and art that religion inspired", I think that's a bunk argument. The art and culture is there in spite of the religion smothering it. The reason all the classic art is about religion, is because churches leeched the money of everyone and therefor were the only ones who could pay for great works of art. If Catholicism had not had a stranglehold on Europe for some 1000 years, the art of the whole period would have been far more varied and fantastic.

I'm ashamed of my fellow man not growing up to face what's really out there, because it's crazy enough as it is without lunacy on top of it.
>> ^jonny:

>> ^gwiz665:
Spirituality is a hoax.
Faith is a virus.
Spirituality is a real, verifiable human experience. There are many paths to having such an experience, some of them involving religion, ritual and/or psychoactive drugs. However much we might disdain the belief in some bearded man in the sky as the source of such experiences, it would be absurd to deny their existence, power, or importance. Religion provides the most accessible path for many people.
I'm not sure what you mean by that second sentence. Do you mean faith in general, i.e., belief in something of which you have no direct knowledge or evidence? Or do you mean faith in the existence of Jehovah, the divinity of Jesus, or some other specific religious doctrine? I'd rather avoid getting into an epistemological argument, but the fact is that everyone relies on faith to a greater or lesser extent. More importantly, though, is just how useful faith can be. No one would argue that it can't be twisted to serve "evil" ends, sometimes without the twister or twisted even being aware of it. But to disregard the usefulness of faith entirely based on its misuse and abuse is ridiculous. It's like telling people not to have sex because of the potential negative consequences.
When I look at religion, I don't understand why it is blamed for so many of the atrocities humans have committed upon each other. The deeper cause is (fundamentalist) tribalism, and it comes in many forms - religious, ethnic, geographic, ideological, etc. All of these have been used as "psychic levers" to inspire people to act in ways they never would otherwise. Even in a hypothetical parallel world in which religion and belief in gods doesn't exist, all of the horrors of which humans are capable would still be found. I'd like to think the artistic output inspired by religion and faith would have other sources as well, but I'm not completely certain of it.

>> ^gwiz665:

Spirituality is a hoax.
Faith is a virus.

Spirituality is a real, verifiable human experience. There are many paths to having such an experience, some of them involving religion, ritual and/or psychoactive drugs. However much we might disdain the belief in some bearded man in the sky as the source of such experiences, it would be absurd to deny their existence, power, or importance. Religion provides the most accessible path for many people.

I'm not sure what you mean by that second sentence. Do you mean faith in general, i.e., belief in something of which you have no direct knowledge or evidence? Or do you mean faith in the existence of Jehovah, the divinity of Jesus, or some other specific religious doctrine? I'd rather avoid getting into an epistemological argument, but the fact is that everyone relies on faith to a greater or lesser extent. More importantly, though, is just how useful faith can be. No one would argue that it can't be twisted to serve "evil" ends, sometimes without the twister or twisted even being aware of it. But to disregard the usefulness of faith entirely based on its misuse and abuse is ridiculous. It's like telling people not to have sex because of the potential negative consequences.

When I look at religion, I don't understand why it is blamed for so many of the atrocities humans have committed upon each other. The deeper cause is (fundamentalist) tribalism, and it comes in many forms - religious, ethnic, geographic, ideological, etc. All of these have been used as "psychic levers" to inspire people to act in ways they never would otherwise. Even in a hypothetical parallel world in which religion and belief in gods doesn't exist, all of the horrors of which humans are capable would still be found. I'd like to think the artistic output inspired by religion and faith would have other sources as well, but I'm not completely certain of it.

enzoblue nailed it, faith vs. blind faith.

Both Oxford and Websters define faith as simply strong belief or conviction, particularly in the case of belief in religious doctrines. The absence of evidence is not a requisite in the English language, it's just an abuse of our language that makes it easier to ridicule people who describe themselves as people of 'faith'.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity. He can have faith that they will be good guests because he has confidence built up by previous visits.


Oxford English Dictionary:

a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, †of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

You are right that people sometimes use the words "faith" and "trust" interchangeably, something I deplore, since trust is evidence-based (people "earn" our trust by proving themselves trustworthy), while faith, in it's original sense, is not. I realize I am nitpicking though.

Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect

You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

What I was doing was attacking the foundations of your argument, and providing evidence for my positions. What you have provided is a lot of speculation based on loose interpretations of our history through a secular lens. I would say I have had some success being that the claims you are making have become progressively more modest:

first post: "Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men"

second post: "I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians."

third post: "Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied)"

first post: "Yes, our government was intended to be secular."

second post: "More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government."

I'm going to be sparse in my reply. Since you have seen fit to do a hit and run, I don't intend to spend much time on this.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

No, my main point was that the establishment clause does not mean seperation of church and state, which is the basis for all of this hullabaloo. You've basically conceded this point to me:

"I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others."

You're admitting here that the purpose of the establishment clause was to keep one denomination from gaining control over the others. It wasn't to protect the country from Christian theism, it was protect the country from a particular flavor of Christian theism from gaining power. What "religion" meant was denomination religion, not doctrinal religion. So if this was the purpose of the establishment clause, it can't mean what you argue it does elsewhere.

"And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care."

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian


This is a bizzare comment and it shows you still haven't grasped my point. If you knew what you were doing, you would known that the whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is based on that letter. Obviously I was well aware of that, and fundementally disagreed with that interpretation, which is why I was busy providing you evidence that proved that this was a misinterpretation of Jeffersons intent. If he meant what you and others say he did, then he wouldn't have acted so contrarily to it during his time in government. Barbar got it; he knew exactly what I was saying. It has apparently gone completely over your head.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

When I say "shocking moral decline", I am not talking about womens rights or homosexual rights. I am talking about degeneration of civil society, the increase in crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, and many other factors which paint of picture of a country that is morally debased and getting worse by the year. I'm not saying it was ever perfect, but it had a foundation; biblical morality. Now that the foundation has been removed we are in a moral free fall.

Here are some statistics:

http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

Perhaps you're just very young and have no context, but in my observation things in this country have gotten palpably worse in the short time I've been alive, and most of that time I have been observing this I was agnostic. Worse yet, this effect appears to be expodential. Not only is America losing its place on the worlds stage, but internally it has become something like babylon.

The bible doesn't say you need to be a Christian to be moral. It says we all have a god given conscience that tells us right and wrong. This relativism that you're talking about is exactly the problem. If its your truth and my truth, then there is no truth, and no one has a rock to stand on. The thing about Truth is that it the same regardless of when it was written or where it came from. It is the same regardless of what people believe. And the bible is true. There is a God, and He has imposed a moral law, and those who violate it will face judgement. That is why Christ came, to save us from our sins, because all have sinned and fallen short. Are humans smarter? In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of wisdom? Not a bit. Human beings are no more wise than they were when the bible was written. The words of Christ are wise and they are for all time. In them, there is life, and that abundantly.
>> ^LukinStone:

I apologize for removing the body of text from the quote, but given the amount of text in it, it seemed cumbersome.

I applaud the significant digging you must have done to come up with a collection of significant quotes. It's well travelled ground to be sure, but it's nice to have more meat for the discussion.

Having read your post, I feel it is worth adding some additional details. I feel it not a surprise at all that the founding fathers and friends make a great many references to God and religion in their many discussions. During this age, the vast majority of Americans did subscribe to one of several Christian denominations. Thererfore, the most significant part of the body of your message, to me, is the incorporation of Christinanity into state-level law.

This would seem completely contrary to our current interpretation of the establishment clause, right? I assume that is where you were going. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding.

Yes, you are correct. This was the point I was trying to make that, in light of what the founders said and did, that the way the establishment clause has been interpreted in recent decades could not be accurate. The founders had no issue with government endorsement of Christianity; in fact they frequently endorsed it. On that point the evidence is overwhelming.

I think you are right. I think those laws are in direct conflict with the our view of establishment clause. I would not be surprised if they were in some significant part responsible for the drafting and ratification of that same clause. You see they came first. Furthermore, they are at the state level, not the federal level. Directly applying those same laws to the states themselves didn't come around for quite a time after that, and very possible was neither expected or intended by those same signers.

I don't think the founders intended any of this. The constitution was written 11 years later, after many of those state constitutions were written. Written by the same people who had written the state constitutions. Considering that there was no action to enforce the interpretation we have today, but that we see quite the opposite, I don't see any justification for thinking they did intend it. The establishment clause was never actually applied this way until the 1960, which in itself was based on a supreme court decision in 1947 involving a school district using public funds to transport kids to a private religious school.

Maybe there's a completely different way to interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". I honestly haven't heard another one put forward. Certainly they wrote these words down for a reason though. If they had meant it to apply only to non-christian religions they would have said so.

My personal suspicion is that the clause was added so as to be able to overlook the religious differences between states when running the federal government. They didn't want the federal government to discriminate based on religious denomination. Take it with a grain of salt though, as I'm certainly no constitutional scholar. The wall of separation thing really is a red herring which occupies no space in law, and far too much space in discussion.

I think it's important to understand that it wasn't written out of fear of Christian theism, as some people are trying to say today. It was understood that Christian theism was the default doctrinal state religion. Neither did the founders write it to be inclusive of other doctrinal religions, like Islam and Hinduism, or something like atheism. They wrote it, as you are saying, to prevent any federal takeover of a particular denomination of Christian theism. It was written for denominational religion, not doctrinal religion. A fight between denominations could have torn this country apart. It scarcely needed to said though that Christian theism was the default doctrinal religion of this country.

>> ^Barbar: