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

[Bgood]

Thomas Jefferson quotes

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

[Ziploc Surprise]

When it comes to denominations within Christianity, Christians have become more tolerant.

While some would like to see you lynched you where you stand, you debauched sinner! Like the Westboro Witch:

They haven't become more tolerant at all! Just less powerful to act on their intolerance. But that can flip in an 'instant': remember how fast the Tea party gained traction? One skydaddy lover in the White House and you could have an honest to goodness inquisition on your hands.
Again.
(McCarthy)

The Westboro group is a bad example because it's only 70 or 80 assholes. It's true that society and government puts a choke hold on religious intolerance. I would say that the cause of the lightening up on intolerance did not come from the Bible or from the Christian interpretation of the Bible. Society in the West has become more tolerant and the mainstream denominations must adapt or die (die because they will not be able to attract a large enough congregation to sustain itself.) Case in point: The Westboro asshole church's congregation. It consists mostly of related individuals.

In other words societal norms, which have evolved to become more gentle and tolerant, have forced (or perhaps strongly encouraged) the Christians to reinterpret their Bible. Case in point (and there are a lot of these cases to choose from) at one time in the recent past the Bible was used to justify segregation. I recall watching a video in which two famous people (one a preacher and the other strom thurmam I believe) said that humans shouldn't break down the barriers that god had put up. The barriers they mentioned were segregation barriers. I didn't watch farther to see how they thought that god had put up the barriers in the first place, mind you I was drowning in bullshit by then and didn't want to listen farther.

Specifically when you look at relative changes you need to measure it in two ways. How it's changed relative to itself, and how it's changed relative to the external changes. In the case of religious changes it always seems to be several steps behind -insert cheeky humorous statement here-. For example churches are finally accepting divorcees, former drug addicts, people with long hair and those who wish to wear informal clothing. These changes happened in society When? Say about several decades ago? The church is as always lagging behind. Now for my nasty comment: Perhaps god isn't leading and guiding the church. Looks likes it's society which is evolving to become more gentle and tolerant.

---

Thomas Jefferson quotes

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"The whole history of these books (i.e. the Gospels) is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

.....and this is one of the founding fathers of the U.S. that many fundies try to slap a religion on so that they can say that he intentionally wanted the U.S. to be a Christian country. BTW Thomas Jefferson also created his own edited version of the bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

[Anomalocaris]

The sole founding principle of the United States was the propertied classes would do better under a form of administration completely disagreeable to London. That's it.

Everything else are grandiose fluff or smoke and mirrors.

The only reason why propertied classes would think this way was because London foolishly did their bidding and evicted the French from Canada during the war of 1756, and therefore they no long felt beholden to London for major caliber protection against a real foreign power.

---

The christian agenda in this country was based on religious freedom

Christians want freedom of religion for the exact same reason why the malicious provacateurs would want the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater. They want it not so other creeds can stand as equals to them, they wanted so they can pursue their own agenda of atavistic dominance without scrutiny from other creeds.

[Godscreated]

The sole founding principle of the United States was the propertied classes would do better under a form of administration completely disagreeable to London. That's it.

Everything else are grandiose fluff or smoke and mirrors.

The only reason why propertied classes would think this way was because London foolishly did their bidding and evicted the French from Canada during the war of 1756, and therefore they no long felt beholden to London for major caliber protection against a real foreign power.

---

The christian agenda in this country was based on religious freedom

Christians want freedom of religion for the exact same reason why the malicious provacateurs would want the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater. They want it not so other creeds can stand as equals to them, they wanted so they can pursue their own agenda of atavistic dominance without scrutiny from other creeds.

You should read the entire post, I said something similar without being a prude.

[Ziploc Surprise]

To Godschild. BTW, please don't think I ignored your post. It seems I've kind of covered the things you addressed in your original post on this thread so it's possible I don't need to go over this directly with you. If what I've addressed so far is insufficient feel free to mention this. Don't expect me to respond tonight though. I've got a splitting headache and I need to go to bed (The cause of the headache has nothing to do with anything said here on this forum (lol), it's due to the pollen in my area. Spring has arrived early in Houston.)

[Bgood]

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the abuses and corruption throughout most Christian churches. The also were aware that it's deeply flawed theology. But it was pretty much the only game in town carried over from Europe. All the Christian references in the earliest documents were done for public acceptance and for traditional purposes. Even though the most prominent statesmen despised the religion or at least never took it all that seriously, they felt it was necessary to add words like God to pacify and appease the masses. Probably still true to this day. I know that Obama has been noted to laugh at and criticize Christian beliefs.

[Minimalist]

They knew what Voltaire had said:

"If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other's throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace."

[Rokcet Scientist]

I know that Obama has been noted to laugh at and criticize Christian beliefs.

You need any more proof that your president is a fundamentally hypocritical fraud? Like all the rest of 'm?

[CliveStaples]

They want it not so other creeds can stand as equals to them, they wanted so they can pursue their own agenda of atavistic dominance without scrutiny from other creeds.

Right, "atavistic dominance" in the sense of "trying to persuade other people to agree with them". At least for the overwhelming majority of Christians. Remember who Jefferson wrote the "separation of church and state" letter to. It was a religious group, and Jefferson was trying to reassure them.

Personally, I don't see anything in the Bible telling me that I should oppose the First Amendment. I'd note that the approach Jesus, his apostles, and the various other New Testament evangelists took was not to advocate for coercive government action, but to talk, persuade, teach, and minister. If there's a good argument that the Biblical model of conversion is coercion, I'd like to see it, because the notion strikes me as plainly false.

[Ziploc Surprise]

They want it not so other creeds can stand as equals to them, they wanted so they can pursue their own agenda of atavistic dominance without scrutiny from other creeds.

Right, "atavistic dominance" in the sense of "trying to persuade other people to agree with them". At least for the overwhelming majority of Christians. Remember who Jefferson wrote the "separation of church and state" letter to. It was a religious group, and Jefferson was trying to reassure them.

Personally, I don't see anything in the Bible telling me that I should oppose the First Amendment. I'd note that the approach Jesus, his apostles, and the various other New Testament evangelists took was not to advocate for coercive government action, but to talk, persuade, teach, and minister. If there's a good argument that the Biblical model of conversion is coercion, I'd like to see it, because the notion strikes me as plainly false.

It's good that you believe this. There are many funda mentalist Christians who are trying to "get back to our Christian roots" by infecting our government with as many fundies as possible. Once in office the goal is to push as many pro Fundamentalist Protestant Christian changes as possible. Case in point, in the Texas school system there are many Christians in positions of power. They are trying to enact as many curriculum changes and any other pro Christian changes possible. This article pretty much says it all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazi...wanted=all About 7 or 8 paragraphs down it says quote "there are now seven on the Texas state board who are quite open about the fact that they vote in concert to advance a Christian agenda. “They do vote as a bloc,” Pat Hardy, a board member who considers herself a conservative Republican but who stands apart from the Christian faction, told me. “They work consciously to pull one more vote in with them on an issue so they’ll have a majority.”

It goes further to say quote " they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions. When they proclaim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” they are not referring to the percentage of the population that ticks a certain box in a survey or census but to the country’s roots and the intent of the founders."

The article explains why the fundies have attacked Texas (it's not just because Texas is more friendly to fundies) what happens here seriously effects education elsewhere. I think A mod would kill me if I copied and pasted the text here so you will have to read the article for that.

BTW I wish I had come across this article at the beginning of this thread instead of now, I think it might have cleared up a lot of confusion.