I wish you wouldn't force your beliefs on me!

[cleanhippie]

[oldhippydude]

1. superduperstitiion

superstition.. beliefs held by many religious folks...

superduperstitiion... the insistence that i believe your superstition

[tama]

2. Think about it

In today's world church hierarchies have nothing in comparison to control and propaganda mechanisms of state hierarchies to force their beliefs on us. E.g. belief in money.

[Starboard Tack]

3. The irony is that belief cannot be forced on anyone.

It can be sold, but you can't make someone buy it, only tempt them. And as the dude said "lead us not into temptation...and...do unto others..."

[tama]

5. Hmm

How is belief in money created? Where does the belief that piece of paper with numbers on it has value and is the foundation of economy originate from? How does that belief system gain more support and power?

All too familiar real life example: European monetary state belief system conquers indigenous (gift economy) lands, murders most of the indigenous population, destroys their self-sufficient way of life and forces survivors into dependence from monetary economy.

If that is not forcing monetary state belief system over others, then I don't know what else to say.

[Starboard Tack]

7. Good point. But it is the system which has been imposed on people, not the belief.

Obviously enough people bought into the belief to enable them to force the system on all. We are all victims of belief systems, whether we, as individuals, believe in them or not. Greed, selfishness, intolerance and indifference are easy positions to sell and many are tempted to buy. There are those who refuse to buy into the "monetary state belief system" and they find themselves ostracized, in the main. There are a few who flourish still in a barter type system and still others who flourish in communal systems, without regard to personal property.
Personally, I strive to be independent of the imposed monetary system. I'm happy to participate in it, but not to the point where I feel totally dependent on it.

[tama]

9. Yes

Some belief systems are imperialistic, others are not. It is my belief or conviction that belief system of monetary statism in it's current form is our greatest common problem, and in that regard the frame of statist belief system vs. various religious belief systems is not IMO helpful.

[skepticscott]

6. You can't make someone "believe"

but you can indoctrinate your children (or even gullible and suggestible adults) into holding the same beliefs as you so thoroughly or from so young an age that the effect is the same. But the real point is that the alleged requirements of beliefs can also be imposed on others. Religious and other homophobes (aided by the apologists who tolerate and respect them) believe that same-sex marriage should be banned everywhere, for everyone, and for all time, and they have managed to impose that on society as a whole. Only slowly (and with endless resistance from religious conservatives) are those imposed restrictions being shed as the bigotry that they are.

[rug]

13. Every child acquires the beliefs of its parents to some degree.

Even if the child later rejects them, it is rejecting what it acquired, whether the understanding of the belief it was given was accurate or not. There is no pure free thinking, some nirvana of pure reason. It's naive to think - or inculcate - that belief.

[Oregonian]

96. So parents should lie to their kids about everything?

Is that it?

[rug]

103. Read it again.

It's not about lying, it's about passing on what you believe - or disbelieve - whether it's true or not.

It's not about lying, telling your children what you know to be untrue. You wouldn't do that, would you?

[Oregonian]

106. No, get it straight

You are defending the brainwashing of defenseless minds with bogus lies by claiming that we also pass on "beliefs" to our children of another stripe.

Are we at the core of your statement yet? Say yes or no.

[rug]

108. Since you compare parents sharing their religion with their children to

"the brainwashing of defenseless minds with bogus lies" it's clear you've already moved into a region where contrasting ideas cannot penetrate.

So, no, we're not at the core of my statement.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Children gobble it up the same way they gobble up "look both ways"

You might want to take that advice before that big old truck comes.

[rug]

112. I don't see any "faux-skeptics" here.

And while it's true you cannot force anyone to believe, it's also true that young children are particularly unquestioning. Which is the main reason why parents should always be open in talking to their kids about anything.

Frankly, if I went around telling my kids all religion is bogus lies made up of fairytales and anyone who believes in it is weakminded or delusional, I'd be as much of an ass as someone who told his kids that anyone who does not belong to his church will be consumed by fire for eternity.

[Starboard Tack]

111. What are "bogus lies? Is there another kind of lie?

Answer me, yes or no! Come on now, spit spot!

[PatrynXX]

10. very true

think many Republicans are false believers. ie they believe in $$. which they can't take with them. They'll be the same person as the homeless person out on the street. And if someone asks upstairs what have you done and the homeless man had just made it passed the gates. think they'll be singing a different tune. Like Kenny did

[JoeyT]

12. You can't force them to believe,

but you can certainly force them to pretend like they do.

I've had several people since highschool (Where I was openly atheist) send me messages stating they weren't religious either, they were just afraid to say anything. I would have never guessed it about any of them, because they went through all of the motions ad hated every minute of it. (Praying at the flag pole before school, leading student prayers, etc)

They were even afraid to say anything to me about it, because if it got out their lives would have been ruined.

Weird thing is I've long since mellowed out (Go go gadget internet: I found out not all Christians are small town Southern Baptists), so they're hostile to religion now and I'm not.

[Starboard Tack]

14. I agree.

There is a lot of pressure to conform and people fake it today, just as Jews in Spain faked it during the inquisition. It is a social phenomenon, characterized by bullying and intolerance, and is not unique to religion.
I have encountered the same tactics used by strident atheists, here on DU, who would consider your discovery, that not all Christians are small town Southern Baptists, to be blasphemy. If you are not hostile to religion then, in their minds, you must be an apologist.
I respect your maturity and your tolerance (mellowing out).

[Plantaganet]

17. Belief cannot be forced. Beliefs most definitely can.

Prop 8, anyone?

Oh, but that wasn't due to religion, of course.

[Starboard Tack]

18. Religion, like all isms, spawns intolerance and bigotry.

The little gang of fundie atheist bullies who crawl in here from the basement is a classic example.

[onager]

19. Come on, ST, won't you please think of the children...

[Starboard Tack]

21. I do think of the children, something we all were at one time.

I feel for the children of any parents who force them to attend church, Sunday school or listen to any kind of dogma. I feel for children whose parents have them mutilated for religious reasons. I feel for the children of those who claim to have irrefutable knowledge.

I was fortunate, in that my parents neither encouraged nor discouraged me from attending church. Neither of them attended, except for weddings and funerals. Same with my grandparents. My brother and I decided on our own to start attending, around age 11. Lasted about 5 or 6 years for both of us. Interestingly, we attended different churches. Mostly, it was a social thing. I never met anyone who took it too seriously, including the vicar. My interest faded fairly rapidly as my interest in the opposite sex, including both the vicar's daughters, grew at the same rate. Of course, this was all in jolly old England, where very few take religion seriously.

My own daughter grew up in the heart of the Bible Belt, surrounded by born again fundies. We had our one and only fight about religion when she was 6. It was about dinosaurs and creation and grandma and the preacher etc.. I explained that different people believed different things and that whatever anyone said, she should listen to them, but take nothing at face value, especially if it claimed to be the truth. Eventually, she would figure it out for herself. I think that was the day she became agnostic, which she is today. Like myself and her mother, she embraces and respects people of all faiths and beliefs and eschews extremism in all it's forms. BTW, she recently married a practicing Muslim and a truly great guy.

[Oregonian]

58. With all due respect, if you grew up in jolly-old England

then you have absolutely no clue the degree to which beliefs can be "forced" on others. The United States is a bastion of first-world fundamentalism that is unmatched (except, of course, in the Muslim 3rd-world countries).

If you grew up in America, you would also understand why atheists fight so hard to be heard.

[Starboard Tack]

62. I hear them loud enough around here.

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

What about the jolly old 1st Amendment. The problem atheists have in America is that not too many people are listening. Maybe that's because, like the fundie preachers, too many are blowhards. In the UK and Europe, most folk are done with taking beliefs systems and other -isms seriously.

BTW, you don't have to grow up in a country to have an idea what it's like. Raising kids, having several born again family members and living in the bible belt gives many clues as to what it is like. Pretty fucking freaky, and I sympathize with all who suffer it. However, not all go through a "Carrie" type experience, as not all who grow up in 3rd world Muslim countries become jihadists. I have lived in a 3rd world Muslim country and never saw anything close to the fundamentalism I've witnessed here.

[Oregonian]

68. The reasons the Establishment Clause are being ignored

Have absolutely nothing to do with atheists, and everything to do with evangelical Christians. There have been several fundamentalist movements in this country since the beginning of the 20th century, including in response to the red scare in the 50s, and during the Reagan/Jerry Fallwell "Moral Majority" revolution of the 1980s. During that time, the # of atheists polled in the country around 1-4%, at best.

Only recently have atheists begun go organize, and talk back. The idea that atheism itself is preventing the enforcement of freedom from religion rights is obscene and 100% lacking in factual basis. It's an emotional argument.

[Starboard Tack]

71. No argument with you there brother.

Atheism is preventing nothing. There are some atheists, however, whose stridency and puritanism and intolerance matches that of the Falwells and Robertsons of this world. Newton's 3rd law of motion at work.

[Oregonian]

72. Not at all

The number who self-identify as atheists, agnostics, or irreligious has multiplied by about a factor of 15 or 20 in the past 10 years alone. So you're dead wrong there.

[Starboard Tack]

73. What am I "dead wrong" about? Agreeing with you?

[Oregonian]

74. "Atheism is preventing nothing."

I took that to mean that atheism (or stridency) in atheism has done nothing to combat religious evils.

And I also disagree about any atheist being comparable to the Fallwells of the world. A university has never been established on the basis of "fundamentalist" atheism. Ballot measures the nation over have not been introduced just because of atheists.

The law is already on our side. The Fallwells of the world have no factual basis, either.

[Starboard Tack]

84. I was responding to your post and agreeing with you.

"The idea that atheism itself is preventing the enforcement of freedom from religion rights is obscene and 100% lacking in factual basis"

My point about "some atheists", and referring to their "stridency and puritanism and intolerance" matching that of the Falwells and Robertsons of this world, was not about ALL or ANY atheists, but some who float around here for the sole purpose of disrupting and insulting other members who do not subscribe to their purist views. Obviously, their intolerance comes from their own horrible experiences. They have suffered intolerance and bullying themselves and now they use the same techniques to support their equal and opposite views (Newton's 3rd Law). You don't need a university to peddle bigotry and intolerance.

Fortunately, we have no Falwells or Robertsons here on DU. Unfortunately, we do have a few of their equal and opposite creations. Try expressing any tolerance for liberal religious beliefs around here and you will face the inquisition, and if you don't recant , you will be locked out of the basement.

[Oregonian]

86. Not my experience so far

So far, all I am witnessing is a very well-organized cartel of religious theists who harangue every atheist here at every opportunity, alerting posts, and engaging in wolfpack-like attacks on atheists who feel that you should support your fantasies with evidence.

In fact, it's the same 3 people. All of whom seem to be coordinating. Like....like a family or something.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Stick around. You'll get the picture.

Unless, of course, you are doing a rerun. Here's a suggestion. If you are tolerant of religious progressives, of our brother and sister Democrats, who are engaged in the common struggle against right wing religious encroachment on government policies, then let it be known.

Do you consider those atheists, like myself, who embrace tolerant, liberal progressives of all faiths and beliefs, as "apologists" for the sins of RC priests and the rantings of RW fundies? Am I an apologist and traitor to atheism for showing support to those liberal Christians who march for OWS. Am I an apologist for marching, arm in arm with catholic nuns and protestant ministers, in common cause for racial equality and gay rights?

[Oregonian]

99. I don't conflate these worthy liberal causes with religious thought

I don't march with a "team" merely out of loyalty. I am a registered democrat, and I wholly support all the things you named, but I refuse to budge one inch on the subject of religion. It's a delusion, and at any opportunity -- whether a dinner party, or a public discussion forum -- I will make known my disagreement of any enabling of religious thought. I believe it is damaging to humanity in general to enable the deluded. And by "deluded", I am not issuing an insult, as I was "deluded" until about age 20 myself.

[Starboard Tack]

104. I see. You were deluded til age 20.

Now you are so angry and intolerant that you have become what you grew to despise, an intolerant fundamentalist. You'll find plenty company in the basement. Enjoy!

[cleanhippie]

102. Do you consider those atheists, like myself, who embrace tolerant, liberal progressives of all faith

Wow. Just wow.

[cleanhippie]

101. When he says "some atheists", he is talking about you. He probably doesn't realize it yet...

but your responses to ThatsMyOpinion, Starboard Tack's Father-in-Law, is exactly the type of atheist-just-like-Falwell he is talking about. His wife, cbayer, a host of this group, feels the same.

Things starting to make sense to you now?

[cleanhippie]

100. Stop LYING! You got blocked for making a homophobic slur.

[Plantaganet]

20. They're the worst.

I hate the way they indoctrinate kids at such an early age. Putrid.

[LARED]

23. That's a pretty broad brush

Does that brush include?

Atheism.
Progressivism

the list is pretty long,

[Starboard Tack]

30. Yep! When the wind is right.

[LARED]

40. Put that way I have to agree. nt

[LARED]

24. Excellent point nt

[Waltons_Mtn]

4. K&R for the toon.

[mindwalker_i]

8. Science, the world, and reality itself have been forcing their beliefs on people for, like, ever

I started out believing that the cookie monster was secretly the man behind the curtain, making sure everything was made of cookies even as it looked like walls, carpet, plastic, and broccoli. However, upon tasting broccoli, I was forced to accept the belief that it wasn't cookies. Life has been full of examples where I believed something and one or more of the aforementioned went and ruined it.

Bummer

[cleanhippie]

16. Science and reality are not beliefs.

[humblebum]

22. Actually they are.

"Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought."

[rexcat]

34. Science is not a belief...

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge&quot is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

To "believe in" someone or something is a distinct concept from "believe-that". There are two types of belief-in:
Commendatory - an expression of confidence in a person or entity, as in, "I believe in his ability to do the job".

Existential claim - to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It
is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "many children believe in
fairies" are typical examples.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#cite_note-belief-in-12

Humblebum, me thinks you are confused.

[humblebum]

35. It appears that the term "belief" is broader than you would like to admit. If

you believe in the efficacy or superiority of science, then certainly that is where your belief lies.

[rexcat]

36. What you said was...

science is a belief and I disagree with you. Yes, I can have a belief that science is superior in explaining the natural world but that belief is based on evidence backed up by facts. You are trying to twist what you said and my counterpoint to your comments upstream.

[humblebum]

37. I am twisting nothing. Does the phrase "justified true belief" apply only to

existential matters? The truth is that you are trying to co-opt the meaning of belief to suit your POV.

The fact is when an atheist claims that they believe in Science, they are declaring that as a belief system based on Science.

[rexcat]

38. Bull...

and your lack of comprehension is beyond amazing but that does not surprise me in the least considering...

[humblebum]

43. BULL - Now that's a scholarly retort if I ever did see one.

Yessiree!

[rexcat]

51. Considering...

the garbage you are spewing and I never said I was "scholarly, just rational unlike some.

[humblebum]

54. You have been proven wrong. nt

[cleanhippie]

55. Uh oh, rexcat, humblebum got you. When he says "you have been proven wrong", it's over!

Yep, with amazing powers of "other ways of knowing", he has declared you to be wrong. What more can you do? Sorry, brother, but he won. There is no way to refute such a proclamation.

[rexcat]

56. I don't think he really read anything I wrote...

or lacks the understanding to comprehend it. I would bet money on the latter. The "other ways of knowing" is just fucking awesome which makes him an awesome something or other.

He has proven me wrong with no basis for the win, again, awesome!

All I can say اخرس احمق

[Oregonian]

59. I, too, was summarily "proven wrong"

on a science and religion thread by the Oh Great Humbelbum One. The best thing to do is lick your wounds, tip you cap, and move on.

What an ironic screen-name he has, by the way.

[rexcat]

64. I have no wounds...

his posts are not worth the electrons used but I do get a good laugh from them. He is such a jokester!

and a belated welcome to DU.

[Oregonian]

67. Thanks! (n/t)

[humblebum]

63. Yes, of course we know that "religious belief" is the only kind of belief. Makes

perfect sense. [SARCASM] Then I would ask you why "belief" even needs to be preceded by "religion?' Isn't that rather redundant.

[Oregonian]

69. No, there can also be "belief in Santa, Unicorns, the Tooth Fairy and Lipstick Lesbians"

If you prefer.

[jody]

11. or tax me to pay for your beliefs whether religious or other. nt

[pinto]

15. Good 'toon. The 1st Amendment applies to all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

25. That cartoon is, shall we say, slanted

It would be far more accurate if the man on the left were wearing a t-shirt saying "RELIGION IS SHIT AND ALL BELIEVERS ARE IDIOTS". A simple "separation of church and state" would be unobjectionable to the majority of Christians, it's the really nasty atheists we object to.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

78. Certainly I do. But the cartoon has nothing to do with that.

[rexcat]

31. And of course you are not biased!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

79. Never said I wasn't.

I notice, however, that you do not address the point I raised.

[rexcat]

88. Gee...

everthing that deals with politics, religion and sex has a slant, duh!!!!!!!!!!!

How is that for addressing your silly point.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

92. And the point being made is "Christians do not believe in separation of Church and State"

There are bigots on both sides, and American atheists tend to be among the worst bigots. MY actual point is that the vast majority of American Christians support separation of Church and State.

[rexcat]

114. You have the bigotry thing wrong...

and you don't know what you are talking about. As an atheist I can tell you the bigotry and discrimination is rampant against atheists by the religious in this country. It is not safe in some parts of the US to say one is an atheist. I have known people for a long time and then admitted I was an atheist. The reception afterward in most cases is very cool to any relationship. I am sure that the majority of atheist on DU have experienced the same situation.

What proof do you have that the "vast" majority of American christians support separation of church and state? Talk is cheap.

[LARED]

28. The cartoon is not representative of reality as

most Christians I know understand and appreciate the importance of separation of church and state. No one wants the government interfering with religious institutions.

The problem is that many Christians do not like the ongoing efforts to needlessly strip every vestige of Christian heritage from the public square and government property by atheists. Sadly in an effort to gain acceptance and I guess to protect some perceived notion of a right of freedom from religion they paint any Christian as a fundamentalist wacko that wants a theocracy if they complain about these efforts.

This cartoon is a pretty decent example of framing Christians incorrectly to further this agenda.

[skepticscott]

29. The irony of this is just staggering

most Christians I know understand and appreciate the importance of separation of church and state. No one wants the government interfering with religious institutions.

Followed immediately by:

The problem is that many Christians do not like the ongoing efforts to needlessly strip every vestige of Christian heritage from the public square and government property by atheists.

In other words, most Christians don't want government interfering with them (except to give them massive tax breaks), but they're perfectly happy with the government promoting their religion at every opportunity. Yeah, that sure is appreciating the importance of separation of church and state.

Wow.

[rexcat]

32. You might as well...

That is beyond irony.

[LARED]

39. Your BS is the only thing staggering

Are you trying to tell me you cannot discern the difference between a needless lawsuit removing a cross honoring Americans that was once on private property and is now on public lands and has been around for say 80 years, and a genuine concern about an endorsement of religion by the state.

Reasonable people see the difference. Ideologues, whether they be religious whack jobs like Fred Phelps or strident Atheist don't.

Also on what planet is the US government promoting Christian religion at every opportunity? That you actually believe this is concerning.

According to you the long history of Christian thought and symbols in the USA is of no consequence and all should adopt a purist view that any and all references, themes, memes, should be thoroughly purged from the public square.

So in when do we fix the US supreme court building and the Washington monument. I read they are fixing the Washington monument soon, perhaps you can get them to erase any and all religious items.

[trotsky]

41. Your hateful intolerance of atheists is showing.

You do know that it's not just atheists bringing these lawsuits and challenges and requests, right? Because it's not. It's also Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and... *gasp* Christians.

http://www.au.org

It's funny to see you claim that blasphemy is bigotry when I observe your behavior here.

[humblebum]

44. Or hateful, intolerant atheists. The violins are getting louder all the time. nt

[rexcat]

57. Speaking of intolerant...

I don't think you have much room to talk or is that more projection on your part. I will go with the latter.

[LARED]

45. Yes we all agree calling strident atheists ideologues is hateful intolerance. Well maybe not all.

You can do much better.

[trotsky]

46. www.au.org

Go ahead and call them atheist ideologues. I dare ya!

You were laughably wrong about who opposes Christian elements in the public square, and instead of simply admitting your error, you lash out with anger.

How very Christian of you!

[LARED]

48. Are they strident or reasonable?

AU seem to be a fairly reasonable bunch?

[trotsky]

49. Quite strident, by your standards.

Demanding the removal of the Christian symbols that you believe are central to our country's heritage and deserve special status in the public square.

And they count not just atheists but people of many faiths among their members. Including, as I pointed out, Christians just like you.

Well, obviously not just like you, since they believe quite strongly in the separation of church and state.

You were wrong. Very, very wrong. Can you admit it now?

[trotsky]

91. Still no admission of error?

That's OK, this thread will be in my bookmarks to link to every time you try to push the blatantly false claim that it's "ideologue atheists" who are fighting for strict separation of church and state.

[skepticscott]

42. Nice try...well, actually not so much

Are you trying to tell me you cannot discern the difference between a needless lawsuit removing a cross honoring Americans that was once on private property and is now on public lands and has been around for say 80 years, and a genuine concern about an endorsement of religion by the state.

Reasonable people see the difference. Ideologues, whether they be religious whack jobs like Fred Phelps or strident Atheist don't.

Reasonable and intelligent people KNOW that the religious right will use any wedge they can to increase the presence of religious symbols on public property, and to lie about it proving that this is a Xstian nation. Reasonable and intelligent people, and religious people who aren't threatened by every lawsuit removing blatantly religious symbols from public property know that it doesn't harm them one bit if those symbols are not there. This "Christian heritage" you talk about sounds suspiciously like the "southern heritage" of neo-Confederate racists.

Also on what planet is the US government promoting Christian religion at every opportunity? That you actually believe this is concerning.

Where did I say that the US government was "promoting Christian religion at every opportunity"? Nowhere. Just another of your lies. I said that most Christians (who you ridiculously claimed value the separation of church and state, when they don't even understand it) have no problem with every instance when the government does promote their religion (and the instances are numerous and ongoing). Go back and work on your reading comprehension.

According to you the long history of Christian thought and symbols in the USA is of no consequence and all should adopt a purist view that any and all references, themes, memes, should be thoroughly purged from the public square.

More lies. I never said that "the long history of Christian thought and symbols in the USA is of no consequence", or anything remotely resembling it. The framers didn't think that either, but they STILL thought that government promotion and endorsement of religion was a bad idea, now didn't they? And as far as the "public square" outside of government promotion and support of religion, bring it on. You and your ilk are always tossing out the "public square" rant, but you want it all one-sided. You want your beliefs trumpeted from the highest mountain in public, but you're abject cowards when it comes to the debate, criticism and critical examination of ALL ideas that is an integral part of that same PUBLIC square. When that same public square exposes the corruption and foolishness of religion and religious beliefs, you cry bigotry and prejudice, and demand a free pass for your "faith". Well, here's a news flash...the public square is not a friendly place and respect is not granted by default...it has to be earned.

[LARED]

47. Do you even read what you post?

Reasonable and intelligent people KNOW that the religious right will use any wedge they can to increase the presence of religious symbols on public property, and to lie about it proving that this is a Xstian nation.

You are projecting your paranoid fantasies on to reasonable and intelligent people.

Reasonable and intelligent people, and religious people who aren't threatened by every lawsuit removing blatantly religious symbols from public property know that it doesn't harm them one bit if those symbols are not there.

So what? No one is harmed if they stay either.

This "Christian heritage" you talk about sounds suspiciously like the "southern heritage" of neo-Confederate racists.

Nice red herring.

Where did I say that the US government was "promoting Christian religion at every opportunity"? Nowhere. Just another of your lies. I said that most Christians (who you ridiculously claimed value the separation of church and state, when they don't even understand it) have no problem with every instance when the government does promote their religion (and the instances are numerous and ongoing). Go back and work on your reading comprehension.

You are still avoiding the question. Where is the government promoting Christianity in an ongoing fashion?

The framers didn't think that either, but they STILL thought that government promotion and endorsement of religion was a bad idea, now didn't they?

Actually the framers thought the federal government establishing a religion was a very bad idea, not all forms of government. You have read that silly tenth amendment correct? If you took the time to study the framers and the history of state governments many had little problem with the government promoting Christian religiosity. In fact many states had religious requirements to be eligible for public office well into the early twentieth century. I'm not promoting this idea, just trying to educate you about the historical relationship between Christianity and the American government.

[Oregonian]

61. "Actually the framers thought the federal government establishing a religion was a very bad idea"

This is a gross distortion of the intent of the framers, if not an out-and-out lie. Not only were several of the original framers deists, who believed that religion should play no part in the way government is run, but caselaw since the 1st Amendment has made it clear that government must serve EXCLUSIVELY a secular purpose, and excessive entanglement with religion is unconstitutional.

I frequently hear this "Hey, govt. just shouldn't ESTABLISH a state religion" argument from theocrats, and it's unsupported by any facts whatsoever. Yes, many states made up their own rules and created de facto theocracies, but that does not color the intent of the Framers nor the constitutionality of the 1st Amendment as it exists now.

[humblebum]

66. "Not only were several of the original framers deists" - I don't consider

"one" as meaning several. And yes "establishment of religion" did refer to the establishment of a state religion, which anyone with an elementary grasp of history would know.

Certainly, many thought that mere establishment went farther than that, but there has never been an absolute separation of C and S in the US. However, I do agree that "excessive entanglement with religion is unconstitutional" even though "excessive entanglement" is somewhat equivocal in its definition.

[Oregonian]

70. Not only several, but probably MOST

were deists. Certainly more than 1. Certainly you agree Jefferson was one:

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

And Franklin was another:

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." -B. Franklin.

Then there's Thomas Paine:

"Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

And even John Adams was certainly not as devout as you'd like:

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"


And you can keep repeating that the First Amendment sought only to refrain from "establishing" a state religion, but that makes it anything but true. Hell, your own words, agreeing with the Supreme Court's "entanglement" language is defeating your own argument.

[humblebum]

75. If you are speaking of the framers of the Constitution, or more precisely

those who signed the Constitution, only Franklin was considered to be a deist. The rest belonged to various Christian denominations. Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention, nor was Paine.

If you are going to continue saying that most were deists then you had better provide some proof. Checking a list of signatories and non-signers of the Constitution reveals only Franklin to have been a deist.

[Oregonian]

76. LMAO!!!

So you will distort history, and retroactively claim that Thomas Jefferson was not a founding father, in an effort to bend your "truth"?

The absurdity in your posts is bordering on pathological.

[humblebum]

82. Where did I say that Jefferson was not a Founding Father? Answer: I never did.

Nor did I imply such. However, he definitely was not a signer of the Constitution.

One of your obvious weaknesses is your inability to provide any sources beyond your own opinion. Show where I said Jefferson was not a founding father.

Again, your type of rationality is a very truncated one to say the least.

[Oregonian]

83. Then one of your weaknesses is being a liar

This was a discussion about founding fathers, and now you have removed Jefferson from the equation because he didn't sign the constitution.

Your position is absurd.

[humblebum]

85. Well one might be tempted to think you're speaking about the Constitution when you are

referring to the "Framers" and the 1st Amendment. However, if you are speaking of "Framers" in general, your "most" increases from one to a few. Few, of course, is much closer to "most."

"Framers" is usually associated with the Constitution though.

[Oregonian]

87. And the "framing" of the Constitution

involved more than just the SIGNING of the constitution. The most prominent & involved "framers" were probably Adams, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jay & Washington. ALL were to a large degree indentifiable as deists.

[humblebum]

89. Oh yes. Adams was definitely a deist -

"And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of HIS providence".
John Adams, March 4, 1797.

You forgot Franklin. But, you are getting closer to arriving at "most."

"And the "framing" of the Constitution involved more than just the SIGNING of the constitution." Yes, there were several at the Convention who did not sign the final document.

[cleanhippie]

94. "Then one of your weaknesses is being a liar" and "Your position is absurd." - Nailed it!

Now you see why most of us just point and laugh at this particular poster. Just wait until he starts in on his "militant atheist" schtick. It"s a riot.

[cleanhippie]

93. "The absurdity in your posts is bordering on pathological."

You are a quick study. Well done.

[Oregonian]

95. To be fair

He makes it easy.

[cleanhippie]

97. Yes, certainly does.

He has been around for some time, and most of us think there is a high likelihood of him being a Poe.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

[Oregonian]

98. LMAO @ the Stephen Colbert study

I thought I remembered hearing that some conservatives think he's sincere. That's just epic comedy, on multiple levels. Colbert has had numerous interviews, and he's 2x as liberal as even Jon Stewart!

[Oregonian]

60. Pat Tillman, among other war heroes

would object to a cross being representative of ALL of their sacrificies. They did not, by and large, go to Afghanistan or Iraq, or Normandy or Vietnam to fight and die for Jesus.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. He believes that separation of church and state only goes one way...

I would say its cognitive dissonance but its consistent with many, what I would call, "soft" theocrats. Many of them may be against what they call coercive religious interference in public affairs(mandatory school prayers, for example), but so called passive displays, especially if they are displays of their religion, they support. They also don't know the difference between secularism and atheism, and also seem to be of the belief that minority religions should have none of the privileges extended to their religion in the public square.

[trotsky]

53. I would say that's a spot on description.

And unfortunately, it fits a lot of so-called progressive Christians.

[cleanhippie]

33. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it smalls, you're killing me!

[mr blur]

52. You really don't have a clue, do you?

Sad, very sad.

[humblebum]

65. You are correct. And there is most definitely an agenda. nt

[Oregonian]

80. Certainly an agenda

It's called adherence to the Constitution.

[polichick]

77. Ah, the logic of the American Taliban!

[QuantumOfPeace]

113. It all depends on what the beliefs are, doesn't it?

Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

1. We cannot have a good social society without good ethics
2. Some things we think of as individualistic, others not

So, some general statement about "forcing beliefs" is a kinda half-truth, a distortion.

In other words,

1. Yes, we need to "force" beliefs, or we cannot have a good social society
2. Sometimes we opt for tolerance, sometimes we don't