Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWilliam Barr promotes Christian tyranny in latest speech
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/william-barr-promotes-christian-tyranny-in-latest-speech/. . .
In typical Christian nationalist form, Barr quoted American Founding Father John Adams: We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
Asked to comment, Freedom From Religion Foundations Andrew Seidel, author of The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, maintained, Barr is misreading Adams. To substantiate the point, he observed, Adams, like the other founders, thought religion and morality were two separate entities; Barr thinks they are one and the same. The founders thought religion could be a substitute for morality. We now know that they were wrong on this point.
What Seidel means here, as he details in his book, is that as Enlightenment elites, the Founding Fathers believed that they were educated and cultivated enough to be moral without religion, but that the masses were too uncultivated to do the same. The masses would therefore require religion. Seidel maintains that the founders were wrong on this point, and we can admit as much while still admiring their positive achievements.
Seidel adds, If the founders believed that religion was important to ensure moral behavior for the masses but not for themselves, that means that the founders were moral without religion. It also means they founded the American government on their own morality, not religion, concluding that Barr is inadvertently refuting his entire argument by trying to co-opt Adams.
Seidels work can also help us see that Barr is twisting Tocqueville in his attempt to marshal the nineteenth-century French observer of American democracy in support of his view that moral behavior is impossible without religion. A claim, by the way, that is entirely fact-free. . . .
In typical Christian nationalist form, Barr quoted American Founding Father John Adams: We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
Asked to comment, Freedom From Religion Foundations Andrew Seidel, author of The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, maintained, Barr is misreading Adams. To substantiate the point, he observed, Adams, like the other founders, thought religion and morality were two separate entities; Barr thinks they are one and the same. The founders thought religion could be a substitute for morality. We now know that they were wrong on this point.
What Seidel means here, as he details in his book, is that as Enlightenment elites, the Founding Fathers believed that they were educated and cultivated enough to be moral without religion, but that the masses were too uncultivated to do the same. The masses would therefore require religion. Seidel maintains that the founders were wrong on this point, and we can admit as much while still admiring their positive achievements.
Seidel adds, If the founders believed that religion was important to ensure moral behavior for the masses but not for themselves, that means that the founders were moral without religion. It also means they founded the American government on their own morality, not religion, concluding that Barr is inadvertently refuting his entire argument by trying to co-opt Adams.
Seidels work can also help us see that Barr is twisting Tocqueville in his attempt to marshal the nineteenth-century French observer of American democracy in support of his view that moral behavior is impossible without religion. A claim, by the way, that is entirely fact-free. . . .
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 831 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
William Barr promotes Christian tyranny in latest speech (Original Post)
CousinIT
Mar 2020
OP
Barr is a much more dangerous man than tRUMP. He's an educated fool whereas tRUMP is
abqtommy
Mar 2020
#1
abqtommy
(14,118 posts)1. Barr is a much more dangerous man than tRUMP. He's an educated fool whereas tRUMP is
just a fool.
safeinOhio
(32,709 posts)2. Waiting for him to declare the "true" Christian Sect.
Can we vote on that?
world wide wally
(21,749 posts)3. There just wasn't AS MUCH money in religion back then
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)4. Yeah, moral behavior is impossible
without Barrs religion, i.e., christianity; hinduism, buddhism, etc., are not eligible