Logic problem: The founding principles of the U.S. and Christianity.

[Ziploc Surprise]

I have a small logic problem. Many Christians promote the belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. As some of their evidence they say that the founding fathers were Christians, and that the country was founded on Christian principles (for more see the video link).

Here's a link to what these people believe, it's pretty nauseating.

Here's my problem: Aren't ideas like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state naturally opposed to what seems to naturally become the Christian agenda (that is to dominate, oppress, and take over)? If the founding father's really were Christians bent on making this a Christian country why would they want freedom of religion and a separation of church and state? Wouldn't that interfere with their agenda? Wouldn't it lead to the most powerful church taking over? If we in the U.S. were to go back to our Christian roots so to speak won't that involve trashing freedom of religion and the idea of separation of church and state?

Oh, and by the way, if someone wants to bring up the worn out argument "That the separation of church and state does not exist in the constitution" please read this first so we can get this bit out of the way. http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/01/17/no...-state.htm This link also explains that, while the U.S. has a history of practices that crossed the boundary of church and state many times, it doesn't negate the founding father's original intent so I think I can say that I've killed two birds with one stone so to speak.

[Minimalist]

Xtianity gave us the Divine Right of Kings. The Enlightenment ( which thought religion was horseshit) gave us the concept of personal freedom and consent of the governed.

But you know xtians, they are easily confused.

[Rokcet Scientist]

(1st February 2012 07:45)Minimalist Wrote:  The Enlightenment ( which thought religion was horseshit) gave us the concept of personal freedom and consent of the governed.

No, it clearly never gave YOU "the concept of personal freedom and consent of the governed" IRL (look around you). How could it have: the Pilgrims arrived just prior to the Enlightenment movement. They were never a part of it. In fact they were 'escaping' it, from 'enlightened' Europe, because they specifically did NOT want personal freedom to screw up their sick view of a socially and state controlled, puritan society. They wanted (and still do; watch the 2012 GOP campaigns) the church to BE the state.

Exactly like Jim Jones c.s.

I.o.w. the USA was started by a bunch of raving lunatics...

Some things never change.

---

(1st February 2012 07:22)Ziploc Surprise Wrote:  Aren't ideas like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state naturally opposed to what seems to naturally become the Christian agenda (that is to dominate, oppress, and take over)?

That's where you go wrong: the Xtian agenda is not "to dominate, oppress, and take over", but to "evangelize, convince, and save".
(They invented Newspeak, you see).

[Ziploc Surprise]

Isn't the history of the U.S. from it's independence from England to the present proof that we were supposed to have separation between church and state. I don't see how things could have developed the way it did if this weren't so. If this country was founded as a Christian country with no separation between church and state, a religion would have taken over by now. In fact, given the numbers of different religions groups that settled here, wouldn't there have been several religious wars by now?

And, on another note, wasn't the governmental system that was invented/conglomerated by the founding fathers done with the intense understanding of human fallibility and religious fallibility (i.e. there was no notion that because humans were so fallible they needed a god/religious system to govern them.) The system of checks and balances and balance of power was a foundational part of the system. In other words it's like saying "we humans are fallible and so is the (very human) church so we must set up a system that will account for this". by balancing power, setting limits, and having one system or group accountable to another etc. it sets up a situation where things can be resolved through reason instead of by domination and war. Though I have explained this poorly, I'd still say that our governmental system is a product of the enlightenment, not of christendumb. In other words it's more proof that the fundies are wrong about the founding of the U.S. But perhaps I'm just another ignorant atheist who's just going off at the mouth again. Looking for proof where there is none.

---

(1st February 2012 07:45)Minimalist Wrote:  Xtianity gave us the Divine Right of Kings. The Enlightenment ( which thought religion was horseshit) gave us the concept of personal freedom and consent of the governed.

But you know xtians, they are easily confused.

What? We are not supposed to be slaves to Christ?

Rom 1:1 LITV Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God,

Gal 1:10 LITV For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I would not be a slave of Christ.

Paul is talking to Timothy here. He refers to Timothy as a slave of the Lord.

2Ti 2:24 LITV But a slave of the Lord ought not to quarrel, but to be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing,

This is a concept which, through abuse, can be twisted to oppress people by teaching the concept that human will must submit fully to christ (which always gravitates to submission to some sort of oppressive system and or individual). Our will it not our own it is (the) _____'s (fill in the blank).

[Rokcet Scientist]

(1st February 2012 17:01)Ziploc Surprise Wrote:  Isn't the history of the U.S. from it's independence from England to the present proof that we were supposed to have separation between church and state.

Yes, if you look at it like that within that limited scope you could get that impression. But if you take a step back and include the real 'start' of the country/nation, 1620 – 1776, the cultural foundations of the US, and the current outlook for the next decade and century at the other end of the scale into your perspective then an entirely different picture emerges!

Quote:I don't see how things could have developed the way it did if this weren't so.

Because they didn't. They only appeared to develop 'the way they did' from a limited perspective. Standard illusionists' principle.
Broadening that perspective, taking a 'helicopter view', changes everything!

Quote:If this country was founded as a Christian country with no separation between church and state, a religion would have taken over by now.

Should magic underpants boy or pro-life boy win the WhiteHouse, they are effectively doing just that! Even Obama kowtows to the churches. Of every religion

Quote:In fact, given the numbers of different religions groups that settled here, wouldn't there have been several religious wars by now?

Unprovable speculation that involves so many more factors. But with stuff like Waco, the Tea party, and those hypocrite candidates bending over backwards to be more Xtian than the next guy, the US demonstrate that they are uncomfortably close to that situation.

Besides, what were the 2 Iraq wars, the war in Afghanistan, and the incursions into Somalia? Whatever they were, conveniently, they also were religious wars!

[Mister Agenda]

I distinguish between Christians and Christianists. It's a mistake to paint the majority of decent, tolerant Christians with the same brush as those who lose their minds at the idea of atheists or Hindus actually being equal with them in the eyes of the government.

[Minimalist]

Quote:the Pilgrims arrived just prior to the Enlightenment movement.

Yet they were just one colony. Most of the others were commercial in nature at their founding.

Even so, just because people begin one way does not mean they are required to never grow. Not everyone is a fundie lunatic.

[Rokcet Scientist]

(1st February 2012 18:08)Minimalist Wrote:  

Quote:the Pilgrims arrived just prior to the Enlightenment movement.

Yet they were just one colony. Most of the others were commercial in nature at their founding.

Exactly, ecclesiastical and commercial exploitation, they go hand-in-hand. All those colonies' cultures are reflected well in today's US culture. The mix is a killer.

[Doubting Thomas]

(1st February 2012 07:22)Ziploc Surprise Wrote:  Here's my problem: Aren't ideas like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state naturally opposed to what seems to naturally become the Christian agenda (that is to dominate, oppress, and take over)?

It's called "having your cake and eating it too." They only want freedom of religion when it comes to their own religion. It's OK for them to push their religion into government, but not OK for anyone else to do the same thing. Like Mr. Agenda wrote, they lose their minds at the idea of atheists, Hindus or any other non-Christians being equal to them in the eyes of government.

[Minimalist]

Quote:Exactly, ecclesiastical and commercial exploitation,

The bulk of the early settlers were CofE. You do understand, I hope, that this nutty fundamentalism which we see so clearly demonstrated by assorted nutjobs is an early 20th century phenomenon. The "old time religion" that these fucking jackasses espouse is only 100 years old and was created by some nutty preachers.