The End Of Christian America

PR claims Trump is winning because Republicans spend too much time on religion. Yet here he is starting a thread to complain about religion (or the lack thereof) in our country.

So you disagree? if social issues aren't your number one issue, then what is?

The republican party is marching relentlessly toward socialism and all moderates do is squawk about social justice and diversity while working Americans are left out in the cold.
 
So you disagree? if social issues aren't your number one issue, then what is?

The republican party is marching relentlessly toward socialism and all moderates do is squawk about social justice and diversity while working Americans are left out in the cold.

Again, El Oh El. What do you think your boy Trump is doing if not promoting socialism? He's not out promoting free markets.
 
El Oh El. Republicans spend too much time bashing religion?

You just make shit up like Desh don't you?

You're big on more diversity aren't you? How are you going to get it? Answer: more social services, socialism.

This is why the voters are fed up with you.
 
You don't think the Democratic party is too radical, do you. You think it's mainstream. Isn't that right?

You just make sh*t up. You're supporting a pro-choice, pro government run healthcare, pro entitlements, anti-trade populist. Besides hating minorities in what way are you at all conservative?
 
You're big on more diversity aren't you? How are you going to get it? Answer: more social services, socialism.

This is why the voters are fed up with you.

Do you know what socialism is? Do you think government run healthcare, like Trump wants, is free markets? Do you think tariffs are free market? Trump refuses to reform entitlements. You think those aren't socialism? You support everything you claim to mock.
 
Hmmm. Isn't it interesting that he didn't mention a specific religion?! Why, it could almost be construed to mean he didn't specify Christianity on PURPOSE!

That's because A) he was actually talking about morality and fidelity to one's country and, B) as I've already said he was at the time involved with trying to get a treaty with Muslims so the Barbary pirates would stop kicking the shit out of everyone who passed by.

Because he did NOT specify Christianity. On purpose.

Are you now trying to change your argument because you can't win on the one you started with?

DON'T YOU HAVE A CHALLENGE TO ACCEPT OR DECLINE?

You're missing something regarding the context. The country was involved in negotiations with Muslims [my how things haven't changed lol] who were terrorizing merchant marines. One of the last things they wanted to do was convey the idea that the young nation was Christian in any sense of the word, because it could jeapardize the treaty.

Basically, it was diplomacy-speak intended to mollify the Muslim terrorists.
 
You're missing something regarding the context. The country was involved in negotiations with Muslims [my how things haven't changed lol] who were terrorizing merchant marines. One of the last things they wanted to do was convey the idea that the young nation was Christian in any sense of the word, because it could jeapardize the treaty.

Basically, it was diplomacy-speak intended to mollify the Muslim terrorists.

I didn't miss anything. In fact, I came right out and said it. He didn't want to piss off the Muslims he was seeking peace with.

Whether it was diplomacy-speak or not, he said it (and more to the point, if you read up on Adams, you'll know he believed it, too).
 
Which religion and which people was Adams referring to?

He didn't say. He INTENTIONALLY didn't say. Because we are not a Christian nation, and so far as he was concerned we were never intended to be.

I think you'll find that when one says "religion" or "religious," there's more than just the one.

Since this appears to be all you've got in that rather bereft war chest of yours, I accept your surrender in being unable to rise to the challenge issued to you.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that abiogenesis can be proven or disproven. At best, abiogenesis can be proven to be plausible but that doesn't prove it happened. And to disprove it, all potential means of life arising from non-life need to be studied and the search would need to be exhaustive, because one could always say 'we just haven't found it yet'.

Only then, after the unsuccessful and exhaustive search for a successful pathway could abiogenesis said to be disproven. The 'exhaustive' part is the problem. It's not like there's a sign in the road that says 'this is it, no more potential pathways'. It doesn't work that way and because it doesn't, means abiogenesis is effectively impossible to falsify.

Now, what has been demonstrated [proven to be plausible] is some degree of self-arrangement. But that doesn't prove abiogenesis since biological life requires functional integration which relies on pre-existing scripted information. For example, a self-arranged strand of RNA would contain nothing but biological gibberish from the standpoint of information neccessary to construct a living system.

Folks who recognize the information problem in origin of life scenarios are going to be nonplussed by self-arranged RNA; the folks [like public school teachers] who don't, will make the conclusion that abiogenesis has be proven and they are apt to teach it that way. And students will be misled. And in the worst case, indoctrinated.

Whether abiogenesis can be proven or disproven is still a question that's trying to be answered, that's the whole point of science and the scientific method.

Testing, prodding, rejecting, re-examining, and working to find out how the world works - that's science. It's how we eventually arrive at "now we know."

And saying, "We haven't found it yet" or "we don't know" is what drives the continuation of research and testing. It's not embarrassing or shameful to say, "I don't know" when evidence either does not exist or does not exist yet.

But the point is that abiogenesis is appropriate for a science classroom because it is a scientific theory subject to scientific method. If it's something that is taught incorrectly that is the fault of the teacher, not the subject.

Abiogenesis in and of itself is not indoctrination any more than any other subject is.

Whereas, as I'd said previously, "Creationism" is a an untestable belief that is not subject to the scientific method. It is actually born of religious dogma and indoctrination. It is not an appropriate subject to be taught in a science classroom. In public schools it belongs, at best, in a Philosophy classroom.

You deny that there is a secular movement. How do you account for the fact they kicked prayer out of school? You deny there is a 'they' lol? Who was Madeline O'Hare but a devout secularist? Who are these people [almost always a minority] who are offended by displays of Christian symbols around the holidays? Again, 50 years ago hardly anyone noticed or paid attention to the symbols of religion on public property.

'They' even found their way into the federal court system and have made a mess out of the First Amendment as it pertains to religious freedom.

'They' certainly exist and they comprise a movement. It's only natural that there is push-back in democracy.

I suggest that it's more than just secularists who are involved in the blowback against Christian aggression. I said rather clearly that there were secularists as well as people of other religions, which is why I believe that painting the push back against Christian oppression and privilege as strictly "secular" is incorrect.

This privilege comes in many forms, starting with the most obvious - holidays.

While Christmas day is celebrated around the country, and is recognized as a national holiday, I have yet to see a national holiday that centers around Judaism, Islam or Buddhism (for example).

I've never seen banks closed during Ramadan or Chanukkah. Yom Kippur goes completely ignored by the non-Jewish world. Diwali of Hinduism doesn't even get a mention if you're not Hindu. Buddhism's Vesak never gets a look-in. One could quite easily say that there is a Christian war against every other religion's holiday(s).

Last year, in Lakewood, NJ, a Christmas tree and a menorah stood next to each other in the middle of town. And then a Christian complained that the Christmas tree wasn't a "strong enough religious symbol" when compared to the menorah. She wanted a nativity scene, too. And so, in the face of the risk of lawsuit, the menorah came down.

That's the same idea as that statue of Baphomet - Christian symbols are okay, but nothing else is. Or, if there's a symbol of another religion, the Christian ones need to be more and bigger.

I'm not Chassidic. I'm not even orthodox, but as a Jew I observe the Sabbath. I'll never forget stopping on Friday afternoon in Mobile, AL on the way to New Orleans (everyone should do Mardi Gras once - but ONLY once). The sun was going down so we got a hotel to stay in until the Sabbath had ended. I was so concerned that people there would find out that we stopped because we're Jewish that it kept me from asking if anyone knew where there was a synagogue. And yet if it was Christianity I carried as my faith, I'd have been just fine.

And imagine how your average Muslim feels these days.

So no, it's not just secularists who have been (or are being) oppressed by a Christianity that's pushed too far and is now feeling the pushback. That's why I say it's not just a secularist movement.

And it's also Christians who have found their way into the federal court system. From Abortion to teaching non-science in science classrooms, Christians have been pushing for decades to force their beliefs into schools and onto publicly held land with displays of religious symbolism. For example:

In Kansas, Chrisitans sued to stop a set of standards for the teaching of science in schools, stating that such standards would "create a hostile learning environment for those of faith." They also state in their suit that having some kind of standards for science teaching will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another." What they're saying is, "If what you teach doesn't gel with what we indoctrinate, you must be silenced." That's not only ironic, but it goes to the heart of twisting the First Amendment.

They are using the federal court system to try and force the teaching of religious dogma instead of tested, peer-reviewed science in science classrooms.

There are myriad cases of teachers proselytizing in the classroom, even when students are not Christian.

As I've already indicated, in 13 states and the District of Columbia Christians have successfully forced the non-science of creationism into science classes by court order.

So let's not pretend Christians are free of blame for the pushback they are now facing. They claim to want freedom OF religion without wanting to grant others freedom FROM religion. And it is not only secularists who are pushing back.

Government is the most efficient and notorious killer over the course of history. Behind it is ideology, of which religion is just one species. In terms of sheer numbers, communism in the last century killed more people in just the last century than religion did in the prior ten.

I don't argue that governments have been responsible for the deaths of a great many people throughout history. I argue that Christianity (and frankly all religions) have also been responsible for the deaths of a great many people throughout history. Does killing someone else because your religion doesn't jive with theirs somehow make the murder less reprehensible?
 
science is the best information at the time


to trash science to protect a failed political meme is fucking evil
 
I didn't miss anything. In fact, I came right out and said it. He didn't want to piss off the Muslims he was seeking peace with.

Whether it was diplomacy-speak or not, he said it (and more to the point, if you read up on Adams, you'll know he believed it, too).

I'm familiar enough with Adams to know he was a strong Christian and he would roll over in his grave if he saw how the First Amendment has been mangled with respect to religion.

That said, the Muslim terrorists of the time were kind of sensitive about anything to do with Christendom---who were their arch rivals in Europe. It was Christendom that prevented Europe from becoming Islamified, led by the likes of Charles Martel. If you consider the historical context it makes sense that Adam would say what he did. He wasn't out to make a point about how 'un-Christian' the early nation was [in fact, it was more Christian than it is presently] but to mollify some terrorists. In which case, any diplomat worth his salt will tell them what they want to hear.

Adams was engaging in diplomacy-speak
 
I'm familiar enough with Adams to know he was a strong Christian and he would roll over in his grave if he saw how the First Amendment has been mangled with respect to religion.

That said, the Muslim terrorists of the time were kind of sensitive about anything to do with Christendom---who were their arch rivals in Europe. It was Christendom that prevented Europe from becoming Islamified, led by the likes of Charles Martel. If you consider the historical context it makes sense that Adam would say what he did. He wasn't out to make a point about how 'un-Christian' the early nation was [in fact, it was more Christian than it is presently] but to mollify some terrorists. In which case, any diplomat worth his salt will tell them what they want to hear.

Adams was engaging in diplomacy-speak

Actually, he wouldn't be rolling in his grave, and he was also a Unitarian.

Then you know that at best it could be said he was a Unitarian and his feelings on religion in general, despite reffering to himself once as "a church-going animal," were really quite mixed.

Adams' views on religion were that it could be the impetus for good on an individual level, and the general populace, but he also understood that religion got abused with some regularity.

He read, a lot, and had a pretty big fondness for the Classics, so he was very much aware of and concerned with the dangers of too much religion - war, bigotry, persecution of others who are not the same religion, and so forth.

Did he believe religion had a place in soiciety? Yes, as a moral compass for the people.

Did he believe any one religion was superior to another when push came to shove in the context of whether or not the US was, is, or ever should be a "Christian nation"? No, he absolutely did not. That's why he helped write the Constitution the way he did.

I won't argue that he said what he said because he didn't want the Muslims any more belligerent than they already were, as I have now twice pointed out.

But I will argue that he believed the US should be a Christian nation, because he didn't.
 
He didn't say. He INTENTIONALLY didn't say. Because we are not a Christian nation, and so far as he was concerned we were never intended to be.

I think you'll find that when one says "religion" or "religious," there's more than just the one.

Since this appears to be all you've got in that rather bereft war chest of yours, I accept your surrender in being unable to rise to the challenge issued to you.


So Adams had no idea that the american people were Christian from European Christian backgrounds when he said that, got it.

And Adams wasn't encouraging Christianity be taught and spread throughout the people in accordance with the constitution when he said that while hoping Christianity would be maintained among the people, got it.
 
Actually, he wouldn't be rolling in his grave, and he was also a Unitarian.

Then you know that at best it could be said he was a Unitarian and his feelings on religion in general, despite reffering to himself once as "a church-going animal," were really quite mixed.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as the attributes of God". [John Adams]

The Unitarians of Adam's day [basically, non-Trinitarian Protestants] were a different species than the modern version.

I doubt that John Adams would electable today, after making such a proclamation. He definitely couldn't run as a Democrat lol.

stelakh said:
Adams' views on religion were that it could be the impetus for good on an individual level, and the general populace, but he also understood that religion got abused with some regularity.

He read, a lot, and had a pretty big fondness for the Classics, so he was very much aware of and concerned with the dangers of too much religion - war, bigotry, persecution of others who are not the same religion, and so forth.

Did he believe religion had a place in soiciety? Yes, as a moral compass for the people.

Did he believe any one religion was superior to another when push came to shove in the context of whether or not the US was, is, or ever should be a "Christian nation"? No, he absolutely did not. That's why he helped write the Constitution the way he did.

I won't argue that he said what he said because he didn't want the Muslims any more belligerent than they already were, as I have now twice pointed out.

But I will argue that he believed the US should be a Christian nation, because he didn't.

I think the mistake you're making is putting too much emphasis on one quote; a quote that, as I pointed out, could be misleading when the historical context is left out.
 
The people who now call themselves 'Christian' in the US seem to consist largely of ill-instructed Jews and devoted worshippers of Mammon. How many of these strange people have ever read the Sermon on the Mount, and how many abide by it?
 
I think the mistake you're making is putting too much emphasis on one quote; a quote that, as I pointed out, could be misleading when the historical context is left out.

Then I will get more general. Get yourself a cup of coffee/tea/cocoa. You're going to want it for this one.

We can focus on Adams, and I still assert that he was not interested in the least in inserting religion (any religion) into the governance of the country, but to gain a true insight into whether or not we were intended to be a "Christian nation," perhaps we should go further afield.

Before we do so, however, I believe it important to remember something: Regardless of their personal religious beliefs, all of them, all, also believed vehemently that at no time should religion rule the country, nor that the country is founded on any one religion (or any at all).

It is also important to note that at the time, it was extremely difficult to at least not have the appearance of being a "Christian," even if you weren't - which is why the "Founding Fathers" found it so vital that there be no religious reference in the Constitution, and that there should never be an official State religion.

There are several "Founding Fathers," but let's examine them in a little more detail, because what they believed personally isn't really as important as the protections they put in place to ensure that this country would never be a "Christian nation" or a "Muslim nation" or even a "Flying Spaghetti Monster nation."

George Washington
Washington was a member of the Anglican church, becoming a vestryman in 1762, and a three-term church warden at Pohick church in Virginia. By all accounts at the time, he was rather devout.

He seemed to believe in an afterlife, and also that God had a hand in the affairs of the world, guiding events and putting everything that happened up to this godly Providence. He also believed that this same providence came into play when it came to the creation of the United States.

But it doesn't necessarily say he was a serious Christian. Of all the private correspondence we have that Washington was involved in, he never mentioned Jesus, and rarely mentioned him in non-private papers.

He was a humanitarian, by all accounts, believing in charity and helping the poor. He came right out and said it, in fact.

Let the Hospitality of the House, with respect to the poor, be kept up...I have no objection to your giving my Money to Charity...when you think it is well bestowed. What I mean, by having no objection, is, that it is my desire that it should be done.

More importantly, he accepted that there are other religions, and their right to exist. When he wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Rhode Island, he said,

For happily the government of the United states, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens... May the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants.

Washington, in the end, while personally religious still signed a Constitution that guaranteed the free expression of religion while at the same time making it quite clear that no religion would rule the country.

John Adams we have already discussed. He believed that we are not a Christian nation.

Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson is an interesting person when it comes to religion. He didn't say much about it publicly, tended to agree that there was an afterlife, believed that God had an active guiding hand where humans are concerned and generally agreed with the moral aspects of Christianity. People often say he was Unitarian, but I'm not so sure about that.

He did say that Jesus' teachings were "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to a man," but he also worked against financial support of churches by the state, and yes, it's Thomas Jefferson who gave us the phrase, "...wall of separation between church and state."

Some people actually came out against him, saying he wasn't fit to be in office because his religious beliefs were unusual. He always referred to himself as a Christian, but also qualified that by saying he was "a sect by myself," or a "Unitarian by myself."

Yet despite that he didn't believe in the "Holy Trinity." And even more importantly, he helped to write a Constitution which expressly forbade the formation of a State religion. Ensuring, once again, that we are not and were not a "Christian Nation."

Finally, Bishop Meade, who knew all of the "Founding Fathers" and apparently knew them well, when mentioning Jefferson's religious beliefs, referred to it as "disbelief."

James Madison
Madison is interesting in that he was a devout Christian, even going so far as to support funding of churches, support religious holidays, and really wanted all public servants to declare, publicly, their own Christian beliefs.

And yet, when it came to the country, he wanted the First Amendment to be worded somewhat differently. His proposal for the First Amendment was that it read:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief of worship, nor shall any national religion be established.

He also backed off, later in life when he was more tempered and seasoned, of some of his more in-your-face religious stances. Writing in his later days, Madison backtracked on some of the things he supported, even going so far as to say that things like paid chaplains and the issuance of prayer proclamations by the President were unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what happened to Madison in his later days, but he wrote a lot that came as a complete 180 from his earlier days, arguing against public expressions of religion and opposing many of the things he had said earlier in his life.

Regardless of the reason, even the earlier Madison recognized that the country wasn't and would not be a "Christian nation."

Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience. - James Madison, 1811

Alexander Hamilton
And here, we find a deviation from most of his contemporaries. Alexander Hamilton was pretty big on religion - the Christian one, especially.

He believed it was impossible for "national morality" to "prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

And yet he still signed the document that expressly forbade the creation of an official state religion.

James Monroe
James Monroe remains an enigma when it comes to religion. Monroe's religious convictions are harder to pin down than the other Founding Fathers, because he himself burned a lot of his personal correspondence after his wife died.

The extant papers we do have from Monroe, be they personal or professional, are devoid of references to religion - even letters that he wrote to friends and family following the deaths of his son and wife (both of which devastated him).

He did have three bibles in his library, but nobody knows whether or not he ever cracked them open.

The same Bishop Meade who referred to Jefferson's religious views as "disbelief" wrote in memoirs about the men he knew, and while he talked about Washington, Madison and Jefferson, he did discuss their beliefs. But whenever he mentions James Monroe (five times) he is silent on religion.

We can't know, because of a distinct lack of information on the subject, about Monroe's religious views - because unless they were in the letters he burned, he never gave them.

The only thing we know for sure is that he was known to have attended Episcopal church at some point, had an Episcopal wedding and an Episcopal funeral.

It is so unusual that anyone during this time should be utterly silent on religion that I think it possible that of all of our Founding Fathers, Monroe may have been the one that was an atheist. But it's likely we'll never know for sure.

And he is the only one of the "Founding Fathers" who did not sign the Constitution - but not because of religion. He didn't like the fact that they omitted a Bill of Rights, wanted the people to directly elect the President and not have all this electoral college nonsense, and he had concerns that the Senate had way too much power. These were major sticking points for him, so he refused to sign.

Benjamin Franklin
Finally, Franklin. Our favorite eccentric. The Founding Father who used to like to sit naked and take an "air bath." Inventor, scholar, thinker. Franklin tended to succeed in just about everything he turned his hand to.

And he was a self-described Deist. He thought that there had to be a higher power, but he didn't think there was some omniscient God.

What he didn't do, however, was show contempt for religion. If people invited him to go to church with them, he went (whether or not he'd make it through the whole service, however, was another matter).

He came up with his "Thirteen Virtues," not in opposition to but instead of the Ten Commandments. Essentially, how to behave in society. And he didn't believe that you needed religion in order to live a moral and ethical life.

Franklin's view of the world was that science and its progress shouldn't be hindered by religion, and he practices what he, for want of a better word, preached.

At 84 years old, a few weeks before his death, he laid out his religious position in a letter to Ezra Stiles, 7th president of Yale College:

You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it.

Here is my creed.

I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.

That he governs by his providence.

That he ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.

That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.

These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire,

I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity;

though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.

I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed;

especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.

He even made a motion during the Constitutional Convention to have a clergyman brought in to pray for them as they deliberated.

Yet, Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University and author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People, wrote that:

Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs...

But the most important part of this ridiculously long post, the crux of the argument, is that even though each of the Founding Fathers, as they are styled, may have had deep faith, a little faith or no faith, all of them believed that that faith should be kept out of the business of government.

And they all wished to ensure that the United States of America was not and would not be a "Christian nation," a "Muslim nation," a "Jewish nation" or any other religious nation. All but one of them put their signatures on the document which guarantees that.

Here endeth the lesson.
 
Back
Top