Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Press Releases and Film News => Topic started by: Allhallowsday on January 04, 2012, 04:38:13 PM



Title: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 04, 2012, 04:38:13 PM
Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa--Michele Bachmann announced her exit from the presidential race Wednesday morning following a sixth-place finish in the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa.

"Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice. And so I have decided to stand aside," the Republican representative from Minnesota told reporters during a morning media availability here at the Marriott hotel... 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-expected-quit-presidential-race-following-poor-161724564.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-expected-quit-presidential-race-following-poor-161724564.html)


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 04, 2012, 06:36:50 PM
Hmm.  Frees up some non-Romney voters.  I liked this lady, and I hope she stays in politics.  Still haven't made up my mind who to support.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: akiratubo on January 04, 2012, 07:22:43 PM
Who?  Seems like I should know that name, but I forget.  Is that the "I'm not a witch" woman?


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 04, 2012, 07:37:12 PM
No, that was Michelle O'Donnell, who ran for the Senate last year and got flamed by Bill Maher.

Michelle Bachman is a second term Congressperson,  self-made businesswoman, and mother of five natural children and over 24 fosters.  She's also a strong evangelical Christian and a darling of the Tea Party - so of course, the media painted her as a fanatical witch. :lookingup:


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 04, 2012, 10:08:42 PM
No, that was Michelle O'Donnell, who ran for the Senate last year and got flamed by Bill Maher.

Michelle Bachman is a second term Congressperson,  self-made businesswoman, and mother of five natural children and over 24 fosters.  She's also a strong evangelical Christian and a darling of the Tea Party - so of course, the media painted her as a fanatical witch. :lookingup:
BACHMAN withdrew her membership to the Salem Lutheran Church just before she began her presidential candidacy.  The Salem Lutheran Church belongs to the Wisonsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod which espouses that the pope is the antichrist. 

BACHMAN apparently doesn't believe in the separation of church and state (consider that euphemistic) but might deny it. 

BACHMAN believes global-warming is a hoax.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 04, 2012, 11:57:38 PM
Might want to refine that a bit . . . many conservatives believe that the idea that global warming is entirely man-made and must be ended by adopting Draconian policies that would cripple the U.S. economy and drive energy costs through the roof is a leftist conspiracy to implement anti-capitalist policies they have long espoused but been unable to get passed into law.  Anytime someon like Alec Baldwin or Al Gore starts raving about how we have to save the planet or save our children, you can bet what they want to do is steal a little more of our rapidly vanishing economic and personal liberty.  Is there a slight warming trend underway?  Most likely so.  Is economic and industrial suicide via the "cap and trade" plan the solution?  I doubt it.  And with good reason.  Lefties are demagoguing this issue left and right to advance an agenda that would be disastrous for this country.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 05, 2012, 12:38:43 AM
Might want to refine that a bit . . . many conservatives believe that the idea that global warming is entirely man-made and must be ended by adopting Draconian policies that would cripple the U.S. economy and drive energy costs through the roof is a leftist conspiracy to implement anti-capitalist policies they have long espoused but been unable to get passed into law.  Anytime someon like Alec Baldwin or Al Gore starts raving about how we have to save the planet or save our children, you can bet what they want to do is steal a little more of our rapidly vanishing economic and personal liberty.  Is there a slight warming trend underway?  Most likely so.  Is economic and industrial suicide via the "cap and trade" plan the solution?  I doubt it.  And with good reason.  Lefties are demagoguing this issue left and right to advance an agenda that would be disastrous for this country.
You need to stop vilifying the left.  We're not all that partisan, Louis.  I think by now most of us over 40 are deeply concerned for the future and well being of humankind, not just Americans.  My friend, this country is so polarized on these topics, and at least a few others, that I won't argue with you.  I like you too well.  But I do not think the USA economy is more important than destruction of the world we live in and the state of the world we leave to our children and our children's children. 


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 05, 2012, 07:52:04 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with you there, friend.  But I do think some of the more radical elements of the left have seized on this phenomena as an excuse to advance their agenda, whether it will actually fix the problem or not.  Making potentially disastrous changes like "Cap and Trade" would have implemented when we don't fully understand what their impact would be would be foolish.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 05, 2012, 11:33:31 AM
But back to no separation of Church and State, I'm well aware of Michele Bachmann's stance there. Why does the religious right continue to insist that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of pious Christians trying to start a Christian nation? There is no evidence of this. Why do they insist on evidence that is non-existent? Granted, the religious right began their campaign to take over the government shortly after the Revolution, but can anybody show me this incontrovertible evidence that the founders were trying to start a Christian nation that the religious right seem certain exists?


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 05, 2012, 12:56:34 PM

But back to no separation of Church and State, I'm well aware of Michele Bachmann's stance there. Why does the religious right continue to insist that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of pious Christians trying to start a Christian nation? There is no evidence of this. Why do they insist on evidence that is non-existent? Granted, the religious right began their campaign to take over the government shortly after the Revolution, but can anybody show me this incontrovertible evidence that the founders were trying to start a Christian nation that the religious right seem certain exists?


The notion "endowed by their Creator" comes to mind.  Since many the Founders that utilized such language attended Christian Churches (cue all the arguments regarding Deism...   :wink: ), I think it is at least a fair step, if not leap, to assume that they had sympathy toward both Christian philosophy and belief in Christian based governance.

On the subject, can you show me where any of the Founders advocated separation of Church and State?  While I agree that the Founders did not explicitly say the USA should be a Christian nation, nor did they say we should be a secular one.

The Establishment Clause was intended to avoid a single state sponsored church as was done in England...action which ultimately led to the fleeing of the UK for the New World 160 years prior to the Revolution. 

I offer for 'further reading' a book I've mentioned here several times:  "The Cousins' War" by Kevin Phillips.  In this book, Phillips posits that the English Civil War (1640's), the American Revolution (1770's) and the American Civil War (1860's) were battles in a single continuous war, and that this war is at its essence a religious war.

The language "Separation of Church and State" was the result of a much later Supreme Court interpretation (1947's Everson v Board of Eduction) of the First Amendment, and thus may well have NOTHING to do with the Founder's intentions.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 05, 2012, 02:03:05 PM
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.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 05, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
Actually the Founders were not of one mind on the issue---or on almost any issue, for that matter.  Their personal opinions count for virtually nothing, it's only the language they agreed on for the Constitution/Bill of Rights that matters.  (As Allhallowsday points out).


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 05, 2012, 03:42:36 PM

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.


Excellent.  We now have the wording of the Amendment in the thread.

How exactly is that "separation?"

The "Establishment Clause" being called "Separation" is an interpretation, and a 20th century interpretation at that.  There is no way that I buy for an instant that a 20th Century Supreme Court ruling speaks to the intent of the Founders on this issue.

There are documents and bodies of evidence that show at least SOME of the Founders did believe the Nation to be Christian.

One cannot prove Separation, or NO Church influence in government, was the intent of the Founders.

Thomas Paine was a spiritual man, but not one of organized religion.  Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, believed strongly in the influence Judeo-Christian theology should have on the new nation.  George Washington trended toward Jefferson's view.  We can bat examples and counter-examples back and forth.



Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 05, 2012, 03:57:05 PM

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.


Excellent.  We now have the wording of the Amendment in the thread.

How exactly is that "separation?"

The "Establishment Clause" being called "Separation" is an interpretation, and a 20th century interpretation at that.  There is no way that I buy for an instant that a 20th Century Supreme Court ruling speaks to the intent of the Founders on this issue.


I'd just like to point out again that there is no single "intent of the Founders" as they were all individuals with disparate individual beliefs.  Moreover, their intentions are only of historical interest.  We govern ourselves (although ironically, that was their intention). 


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 05, 2012, 04:36:24 PM

I'd just like to point out again that there is no single "intent of the Founders" as they were all individuals with disparate individual beliefs.  Moreover, their intentions are only of historical interest.  We govern ourselves (although ironically, that was their intention). 


I agree, and I had hoped that my example of mentioning but three varying views (Paine, Jefferson and Washington) showed my agreement.

It's certainly inaccurate to speak of them as a homogeneous group, especially on issues of religion and federalism.

I guess my only "nitpick" in this type of discussion is the presumption that is too often made that Separation is some de facto, accepted notion that goes back to the Founders.  Like many things in law, social construction and historical analysis, it is simply not that clear cut.

It is just as 'incorrect' or 'improper' for one group to lay claim that Separation is the premise from the Founding forward as it is for the other group to claim Judeo-Christian governance was pre-ordained by the Founders.

The most accurate statement is of course that Separation is current case law as decided by the Supreme Court.

However, I argue that it is fair to continue that discussion (and potential action in the form of future voting habits and legislation) to challenge the very basis of the Supreme Court to assert that law.  Yes, current practice *IS* for the court to decide case law, but the court also has technically 'grabbed' Constitutional Review authorities not granted by the Constitution.

Given the 10th Amendment, the validity of the Court's ruling on Church and State merits discussion.

I'm in a hurry (have somewhere I need to be), so this is at least borderline incoherent...maybe I'll try to clarify later.  In the meantime,

Peace out, dudes.  It's always fun discussing this stuff with you guys.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 05, 2012, 04:51:49 PM
ulthar, in response to your earlier post, you make a measured and fair response.

I’m not saying that the intent of the Founding Fathers is clear regarding the separation of church and state. I’m merely saying that I object to the ridiculous assumption by the funadmentalist religious right that they were founding a Christian nation, as if they were creating a nation to be the virtual instrument of God. Many among the religious right insist upon this, going so far as to suggest evidence in support of that claim that does not exist, or, in lack of evidence, simply saying “I just know they did.”

The Founding Fathers encompassed a complex set of personal beliefs, faiths, and degrees of faith.

Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most revered and respected of them, had complex opinions about religion. His support of religious freedom and tolerance can be seen in this quote:

“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

He was in steadfast support of both the Establishment clause and the freedom of religion. And, sorry to differ with you, but Thomas Jefferson did indeed advocate the separation of church and state, going so far as to use those words in 1802:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Thomas Jefferson was not a distinct deist, although many of his quotes can be interpreted to be influenced by the belief. For example:

"The whole history of these books [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."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Benjamin Franklin teetered between deism and Christianity. Likewise, John Adams, while identifying himself as a Christian and espousing the benefits of regular church attendance, was also influenced philosophically by deism. George Washington was a vigorous supporter of religious tolerance, and made it a point to attend numerous services, including Presbyterian, Quaker, Congregational, and Catholic.
 
And then there’s Thomas Paine.

Paine was a steadfast deist until his death. Thomas Paine published Common Sense, a publication that incited the people to revolution against Britain. So influential was this work that even John Adams said: "Without the pen of the author of 'Common Sense,' the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.” There can be absolutely no shred of doubt that he was in full support of the separation of church and state, and I defy anybody to find evidence to the contrary.
 
In return for his considerable contribution to the independence of America, Thomas Paine was reviled and alienated from America after the revolution by the religious foothold that was already taking hold of the government and driving out the deistic principles of the Enlightenment that inspired it. The final slap in the face came in the form of his obituary: "He had lived long, did some good and much harm." Only six people attended his funeral, two of which were black freedmen who attended simply to pay their respects to one of the earliest advocates of the abolition of slavery.

In summation of this rather long analysis of the religious intentions (or lack thereof) of our Forefathers, yes, it cannot be concluded what the Founding fathers intended for the spiritual direction of a new nation. The only thing that can be seen for sure is their general support of religious freedom. Aside from that, their beliefs, depending on the individual, ran from faith to near atheism.

All of this is simply in support of my claim that many on the religious right insist that there was a collective Christian agenda on the part of our Forefathers, with no evidence to support it, while there is plenty of evidence that a number of them as individuals were either subtlely or ourspokenly opposed to such an agenda.

WHEW! I’M DONE!


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 05, 2012, 06:24:38 PM

 lack of evidence, simply saying “I just know they did.”



Yes, the ever entertaining "I want it to be so, so it is" argument.   Fun to witness on all side of any debate.

Regarding the rest...we don't disagree.  I guess at most, we pick on the different sides for the same reason.

Thanks for the detailed post.

One this is for certain...the Founding of this nation was by some pretty big thinkers.  We need to follow their example - stand for SOMETHING and articulate the whats and whys of that...not hide behind dogma and wishful thinking.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Jim H on January 05, 2012, 07:03:19 PM
Quote
Paine was a steadfast deist until his death.

Most fascinating about the man is his, charitably speaking, strong dislike of organized religion in general and Christianity in particular.  It amuses me when he is talked about in glowing terms by people who would hate his guts today if they met him.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 05, 2012, 07:19:44 PM
Quote
Paine was a steadfast deist until his death.

Most fascinating about the man is his, charitably speaking, strong dislike of organized religion in general and Christianity in particular.  It amuses me when he is talked about in glowing terms by people who would hate his guts today if they met him.

A salient observation. Paine was a man who made plenty of inflammatory statements toward religion, and as you say, Christianity in particular. Keep in mind that the more inflammatory of these were usually by letter in response to Christians endeavoring to debate or convert him. He was constantly being challenged for his beliefs and enticing his response, and he was simply being as honest as he could be in his responses. Thomas Jefferson made some comments about religion and the Gospels that were quite inflammatory as well, just not to Paine's extent. Plus, Jefferson's contributions to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and his generally more diplomatic tone toward organized religion were such that his offenses to the Christian masses were more easily overlooked.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 05, 2012, 08:50:14 PM

I'd just like to point out again that there is no single "intent of the Founders" as they were all individuals with disparate individual beliefs.  Moreover, their intentions are only of historical interest.  We govern ourselves (although ironically, that was their intention). 


I agree, and I had hoped that my example of mentioning but three varying views (Paine, Jefferson and Washington) showed my agreement.

It's certainly inaccurate to speak of them as a homogeneous group, especially on issues of religion and federalism.

I guess my only "nitpick" in this type of discussion is the presumption that is too often made that Separation is some de facto, accepted notion that goes back to the Founders.  Like many things in law, social construction and historical analysis, it is simply not that clear cut.

It is just as 'incorrect' or 'improper' for one group to lay claim that Separation is the premise from the Founding forward as it is for the other group to claim Judeo-Christian governance was pre-ordained by the Founders.

The most accurate statement is of course that Separation is current case law as decided by the Supreme Court.

However, I argue that it is fair to continue that discussion (and potential action in the form of future voting habits and legislation) to challenge the very basis of the Supreme Court to assert that law.  Yes, current practice *IS* for the court to decide case law, but the court also has technically 'grabbed' Constitutional Review authorities not granted by the Constitution.

Given the 10th Amendment, the validity of the Court's ruling on Church and State merits discussion.

I'm in a hurry (have somewhere I need to be), so this is at least borderline incoherent...maybe I'll try to clarify later.  In the meantime,

Peace out, dudes.  It's always fun discussing this stuff with you guys.

Good points all (except that you really shouldn't cite the 10th Amendment for any proposition, but I believe I know where you're going with that).  Unfortunately, I skimmed your original post and missed the part where you cited the Founders differing religious beliefs (though not all scholars would consider Washington a Founder---deciding who counts as a "Founder" is another reason "Founder's intent" really isn't a fruitful avenue of discussion, at least in a legal sense).

And Flick is right in pointing out that the phrase "separation of Church and State" traces back to Jefferson, who was unquestionably a Founder.  That doesn't make it a part of Constitutional law, of course.  The Supreme Court has used the phrase "separation of church and state" as a metaphor, not a legal doctrine.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 05, 2012, 09:11:52 PM

And Flick is right in pointing out that the phrase "separation of Church and State" traces back to Jefferson, who was unquestionably a Founder.  That doesn't make it a part of Constitutional law, of course.  The Supreme Court has used the phrase "separation of church and state" as a metaphor, not a legal doctrine.



It's my understanding that Jefferson's use of that phrase stemmed from a very specific concern that one group of Baptists had regarding one specific denomination was to become the national religion.  Jefferson was responding to that by reiterating that the First Amendment prohibits such establishment.  Context is very important.

Transcripts of the 1789  Congressional Record show considerable debate on this topic over a period of several months.  There is some interesting reading there.  The debate begins near the beginning of June:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=221


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 05, 2012, 09:29:03 PM

And Flick is right in pointing out that the phrase "separation of Church and State" traces back to Jefferson, who was unquestionably a Founder.  That doesn't make it a part of Constitutional law, of course.  The Supreme Court has used the phrase "separation of church and state" as a metaphor, not a legal doctrine.



It's my understanding that Jefferson's use of that phrase stemmed from a very specific concern that one group of Baptists had regarding one specific denomination was to become the national religion.  Jefferson was responding to that by reiterating that the First Amendment prohibits such establishment.  Context is very important.

Transcripts of the 1789  Congressional Record show considerable debate on this topic over a period of several months.  There is some interesting reading there.  The debate begins near the beginning of June:

[url]http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=221[/url]


Yes, it's interesting---but, as a possible off-topic point of jurisprudence, the existence of such debates is one of the reasons courts never rely on legislative history to help interpret a statute unless their backs are up against a wall.  The final text they wrote is the best evidence of what everyone eventually agreed to.  It's interesting to see their reasoning laid out, but in a legal sense it's rarely considered relevant.  A Justice like Scalia would almost never look at legislative history, and Justice Thomas is even more strident in his refusal to look at it.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 05, 2012, 09:29:17 PM

And Flick is right in pointing out that the phrase "separation of Church and State" traces back to Jefferson, who was unquestionably a Founder.  That doesn't make it a part of Constitutional law, of course.  The Supreme Court has used the phrase "separation of church and state" as a metaphor, not a legal doctrine.



It's my understanding that Jefferson's use of that phrase stemmed from a very specific concern that one group of Baptists had regarding one specific denomination was to become the national religion.  Jefferson was responding to that by reiterating that the First Amendment prohibits such establishment.  Context is very important.

Transcripts of the 1789  Congressional Record show considerable debate on this topic over a period of several months.  There is some interesting reading there.  The debate begins near the beginning of June:

[url]http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=221[/url]


Yes, well, context is always important. However, "separation of church and state" is a difficult term to apply ANY context to. Regardless of the setting or context, it has a pretty explicit meaning. Additionally, when Jefferson asserted "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State," he was making a direct correlation between the Constitution and that separation. I think the context is pretty clear.

And yes, Rev is right, of course, that doesn't make it constitutional law. It demonstrates an intent on the part of one particular founder.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 05, 2012, 09:41:53 PM


Yes, it's interesting---but, as a possible off-topic point of jurisprudence, the existence of such debates is one of the reasons courts never rely on legislative history to help interpret a statute unless their backs are up against a wall.  The final text they wrote is the best evidence of what everyone eventually agreed to.  It's interesting to see their reasoning laid out, but in a legal sense it's rarely considered relevant.  A Justice like Scalia would almost never look at legislative history, and Justice Thomas is even more strident in his refusal to look at it.



Cool.

I meant interesting merely for us as mere mortals digging on the history of the discussion.

I would be rather disappointed in the Justices looking at legislative history too closely...the whole separation of powers rearing it's head. 

The discussion DOES show the mindset of the day, among those Congressman at least, long before the court got involved.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 05, 2012, 10:18:23 PM
One thing to remember in citing Jefferson is that he was NOT one of the men who wrote the Constitution, or contributed to the Bill of Rights.  He was in Paris during the 1787 Convention, and in fact was highly skeptical of many parts of the Constitution during the debate for ratification.  It was only through the intercession of his friend Madison that he became a lukewarm supporter of the proposed new government, and even during his stint as Secretary of State he questioned some parts of it, as in his famous exchange with George Washington over whether or not it was necessary to have a Senate at all.  Jefferson was undeniably brilliant, yet the more I study him and his life, the less I respect him.  He was downright devious and manipulative at times, publicly denouncing the partisan press which attacked George Washington's administration (of which he was a part) while privately funding some of the worst offenders.

As for Thomas Paine, it would be appropriate to remember that, as brilliant a propagandist as he was, he was a highly unstable personality who wound up alienating virtually everyone who tried to befriend and support him.  His savage attacks on George Washington were prompted by Washington's refusal to support the more radical stages of the French Revolution than by any religious motivation.

Our founders were a mixed bag in their personal beliefs.  Jefferson was a Deist and a Unitarian, Franklin flirted with Deism but near the end of his life believed in a persona, prayer-answering God.  Adams was a traditional Congregationalist Christian who drifted towards Unitarianism during some parts of his life.  Madison was more of a Deist in his youth and moved towards conventional Christianity in his old age.  Hamilton and Washington were both traditional Anglican Christians in their thinking.

I think it is safe to say that, while our founders held various and sometimes changing religious beliefs, they were overwhelmingly the products of a predominantly Protestant, Christian society and envisioned an America that would be essentially Christian in its fabric, while tolerating all other belief systems whose followers wished to come here.

Two very informative books are David Barton's ORIGINAL INTENT (I know a lot of lefties like to vilify Barton, but the fact is that he lets the founders' words speak for themselves, and has done enormous amounts of research.  The bibliography at the end of the this book is nearly 100 pages!) and also another text - and I've lost my copy, so I can't recall the author - entitled NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY, which analyzes the influence of Christianity, and particularly the Reformation, on the Founding generation.  It was a very well-written, carefully researched, and non-dogmatic analysis.

The debate over the influence of Christianity on our founders goes on and on, and probably will continue to do so.  What I tell my college classes is that, taken as a group, they are neither the Bible-thumpers that many fundamentalists would have you believe, nor the freethinking Deists, atheists, and agnostics that modern academics seem to think.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 05, 2012, 10:34:22 PM
Quote
I think it is safe to say that, while our founders held various and sometimes changing religious beliefs, they were overwhelmingly the products of a predominantly Protestant, Christian society and envisioned an America that would be essentially Christian in its fabric, while tolerating all other belief systems whose followers wished to come here.

It is not safe to say this at all, Indy. In fact, it is just as safe to say that they were more a product of the Age of Enlightenment than the Protestant Reformation. The deistic elements of the Age of Enlightenment were a profound influence on the philosophy of the time and of the Revolutionists. I would love to see what historical evidence you could provide that would suggest that the founders were overwhelmingly Christian and envisioned a Christian nation.

Also, it is not surprising that the founders you would be most critical of happen to be critical of religion. Shocking.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 06, 2012, 10:09:20 AM

 a product of the Age of Enlightenment than the Protestant Reformation. The deistic elements of the Age of Enlightenment were a profound influence on the philosophy of the time and of the Revolutionists.


Do you find this to be a good thing?

Because I think the Age of Enlightenment is a bit of a misnomer....I think, with the benefit of hindsight, looking back at what we are now reaping from that philosophical movement, a better name would be "The Age of Smug Self Aggrandizement."

I hold modern academia and farce it represents as evidence for the lie that "enlightened thinking" has produced.  But maybe that's a conversation we should continue in private.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 06, 2012, 10:48:09 AM

 a product of the Age of Enlightenment than the Protestant Reformation. The deistic elements of the Age of Enlightenment were a profound influence on the philosophy of the time and of the Revolutionists.


Do you find this to be a good thing?

Because I think the Age of Enlightenment is a bit of a misnomer....I think, with the benefit of hindsight, looking back at what we are now reaping from that philosophical movement, a better name would be "The Age of Smug Self Aggrandizement."

I hold modern academia and farce it represents as evidence for the lie that "enlightened thinking" has produced.  But maybe that's a conversation we should continue in private.

Whatever you may think of the Enlightenment as a whole, one of it's greatest contribution to history is the theory of representative democracy and natural rights, and to my mind that has been an unquestionable boon to humanity.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 06, 2012, 11:43:58 AM

Whatever you may think of the Enlightenment as a whole, one of it's greatest contribution to history is the theory of representative democracy and natural rights, and to my mind that has been an unquestionable boon to humanity.


Different perspective:  Individuals provided those contributions not a philosophical movement.  True, they may have been influenced by that movement, but I doubt that people contemporary with grand movements like this act because of it, rather than help cause it.

It's like saying Kennedy wanted to send Americans to the moon because of the space race, whereas it is probably more correct to say that he helped cause the space race by announcing his goals...maybe that's a simplistic example.

My point is that those contemporary with the movement are products of FAR more diverse philosophies than JUST that movement.  It cannot be denied that religion in general and Christianity in particular were VERY large influences in 1770's America.

To this end, it is immaterial whether Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Paine and others adopted Christian ideals as their own PERSONAL belief system; the influence of the belief system was present in their lives and in the culture in which they lived.  The enlightenment movement active in Europe at the time exerted an influence, but I doubt one can assign causality to contemporary thinking.

Further, I must say that I find this argument somewhat circular.  On the one hand, "Endowed by their Creator" and other very Christian thinking permeates the writing of the day yet the claim is made that the Enlightenment thinking prompted the promotion of natural rights...the same Enlightenment that has as its core the rejection of Christian notions of subservience to a higher power.

The term 'deist' was originally used as an antonym for atheist...more like we would use the term "theist" today.  When did the term take on its present connotation - before or after "The Enlightenment" gained critical mass in Europe?


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 06, 2012, 12:18:14 PM
Okay, I'll be more than happy to continue any conversation in private. I will offer one more post here and be done on the forum, however. Indy says it's safe to say that the founders envisioned a Christian nation. I say it's not even remotely safe to say so. I'm not saying that it's safe to say that they intended a secular nation either. The truth is neither can be concluded. Both sides are guilty of some level of revisionist history.

However, the Enlightenment permeated the philosophy of the Revolutionist intelligentsia of the day. I don't know how anybody can reasonably deny that. If you feel that was a bad thing, then that's your prerogative. Some of the founding fathers were Christians, some were not. End of story. There is nothing but conjecture that suggests there was an effort toward a Christian nation. If it were, it would be in the constitution. But alas it is not. The term "Creator," as it appears in the Declaration of Independence, was put there by none other than the non-Christian Jefferson, a pretty obvious indicator of his deist leanings at the time.

I would conjecture that, had the Christians been in charge of the split from Britain it probably would never have happened. Rebellion is, according to the Bible, a sin akin to witchcraft. The Bible explicitly advises against rebellion against a monarchy in more than one instance. No. Rebellion against Britain had to be carried out by more "enligtened" minds. And so it was. If the Christians had been in charge, I would be willing to bet any amount of money that we WOULD have a national religion and a national church, just as many Eurpoean nations did during the Protestant Reformation. It is a good thing that our most prominent founders, the ones who got things done, were more of a deistic, Enlightenment-inspired mind. But the Christian revisionists would like everyone to think that the founders were all like John Jay.

The quote below does not establish anything according to Constitutional law regarding separation of church and state. However, I see no reason why it is not a good indicator of the early founders trying to steer the nation clear of being identified as a Christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli, in response to piracy in the Mediterranean that was rampant in the 18th Century, signed by John Adams in 1797, included the following article:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This is John Adams, who the last time I checked was one of the most prominent of the founders, making a specific denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government by saying that it was not a nation foundedon the Christian religions in any sense.

Now, has the U.S. evolved into a Christian nation in some senses? Most certainly. And so be it. But I defy anyone who tries to revise history to portray the founders as setting out to creat a Christian nation. This is a myth. The fact that the predominant religion of the early Americas was Christian means that Christianity was a part of the fabric of the people, not argument of any kind there. What it DOES NOT mean, and IS NOT supported by any historical evidence or in the Constitution, is that the founding fathers intended a Christian nation. There is, in fact, direct evidence by many of the most prominent among them, of intents to steer clear of indentification of the U.S. as a Christian nation.

Keep in mind that at no point in this thread have I brought up the argument regarding separation of church and state. Ulthar brought that up.

I am providing direct quotation that supports my claim that the founders had no intent of a Christian nation. I haven't seen anybody provide anything to the contrary so far. I would love to see it.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 06, 2012, 12:47:19 PM

 The fact that the predominant religion of the early Americas was Christian means that Christianity was a part of the fabric of the people, not argument of any kind there.



This is what I said above, and to clarify: with that as the cultural fabric, it matters MUCH less how the individual Founders self-identify.  To put it cutesy, you can take the girl out of the trailer park, but you cannot take the trailer park out of the girl.

We ALL run the risk of exhibiting cultural influences in our thinking (and behavior), even when we claim to reject those same influences or self-identify with something else.  I'm well aware of that "failing" in myself.  I do, too, often laugh at similar hypocrisies in others.

Quote

Keep in mind that at no point in this thread have I brought up the argument regarding separation of church and state. Ulthar brought that up.



Revisionist Hogwash!   :teddyr: :teddyr:   :wink:

You wrote the following before I even responded to this thread: (http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,136772.msg451993.html#msg451993)

Quote

But back to no separation of Church and State, I'm well aware of Michele Bachmann's stance there. Why does the religious right continue to insist that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of pious Christians trying to start a Christian nation? There is no evidence of this. Why do they insist on evidence that is non-existent? Granted, the religious right began their campaign to take over the government shortly after the Revolution, but can anybody show me this incontrovertible evidence that the founders were trying to start a Christian nation that the religious right seem certain exists?



which was presumably in response to something AHD had mentioned earlier (and Indy in turn responded to).

I responded to YOUR question (quoted above).

And for the record, I think when you say "no evidence," my only point is that there is plenty of evidence (See the discussion in the 1789 Congressional Record I mentioned earlier, which was on the very adoption of the First Amendment by the House of Representatives...some members of whom did not want to even discuss amending the Constitution) surrounding the belief that they represent the constituency - a predominantly Christian constituency by your own admission - and are not there to act merely in their OWN beliefs.

As Rev pointed out, this does not make something "case law," but who cares.  Social values are not based on case law.

It's a thorny discussion with no clear cut "conclusion" to be gained.   Some Founders may well have hated the notion of a Christian nation but simultaneously recognized that it is NOT their decision to make...'the will of the people' and those they represent weighed heavily on their minds.

If they acted solely in their OWN interest, within their OWN beliefs, they would have become the very same kind of dictator they had just fought a war to eliminate.  And that kind of language is VERY clear in the writing of the day.

So, to me it seems like a straw man to bring up whether so-and-so was or was not a Christian or Deist or worshiped castrated monkeys.   They took very seriously their role to represent the people that elected them to put the Constitution into practice, and for many of them, those people were Christians.

Sadly, that's a notion virtually dead in our representatives today.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 06, 2012, 12:51:22 PM

Whatever you may think of the Enlightenment as a whole, one of it's greatest contribution to history is the theory of representative democracy and natural rights, and to my mind that has been an unquestionable boon to humanity.


Different perspective:  Individuals provided those contributions not a philosophical movement.  True, they may have been influenced by that movement, but I doubt that people contemporary with grand movements like this act because of it, rather than help cause it.


It seems that you could say with equal validity that it was individual thinkers, not a philosophical movement, that contributed the Enlightenment ideas you disagree with.


Further, I must say that I find this argument somewhat circular.  On the one hand, "Endowed by their Creator" and other very Christian thinking permeates the writing of the day yet the claim is made that the Enlightenment thinking prompted the promotion of natural rights...the same Enlightenment that has as its core the rejection of Christian notions of subservience to a higher power.


I don't agree that the Enlightenment "has as its core the rejection of Christian notions of subservience to a higher power."  It's true that a major tenet of the Enlightenment is the belief that reason should guide mankind's decisions rather than obedience to blind authority, but many (most?) Enlightenment thinkers found reason and Christianity compatible---Descartes, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Kant (in a nuanced way), and the majority of the Founding Fathers. 

Very interesting discussion despite our points of disagreement.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: tracy on January 06, 2012, 01:33:24 PM
I never was that interested in her anyway.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 06, 2012, 02:25:06 PM

I don't agree that the Enlightenment "has as its core the rejection of Christian notions of subservience to a higher power."  It's true that a major tenet of the Enlightenment is the belief that reason should guide mankind's decisions rather than obedience to blind authority, but many (most?) Enlightenment thinkers found reason and Christianity compatible---Descartes, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Kant (in a nuanced way), and the majority of the Founding Fathers.  


Fair enough.  I suffer from conflating the original movement and what has grown from it.  That's certainly not fair on my part.

Quote

Very interesting discussion despite our points of disagreement.


I agree.  The disagreements are, in my opinion, fueling some interesting back-n-forth.  I enjoy this type of discussion (it seems more about throwing out ideas and 'arguments' in the logical sense and less about they style of persuasive rhetorical steeped in "agree with me or you're a doody-head" too often seen on Internet discussions).


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 06, 2012, 03:56:34 PM
Well, ulthar, guilty as charged. I guess I did post the words "separation of church and state." However, to clarify, I was more referring to my general stance, the one I've been emphasizing all along, that the founders had no agenda of creating a Christian nation. That has been my focus all along. I've visiting some pretty amazing websites designed at painting the picture of our founders kneeling in fervent prayer before each session of the Constitution, how half of the founders had seminary degrees, how they were predominantly devout Christians. This is simply not the case.

Speaking of which, I never said the founders were predominantly Christian. I said the predominant religions practiced by the people was Christian. That was my whole point. Religious groups and members of the early government that WERE Christian tried to shoehorn religion into government as if the nation were guided by Judeo-Christian values.

Can anybody tell me how the Constitution is guided by the Bible? I don't get it. The Ten Commandments? Okay, so there are maybe two of the ten Commandments that are prohibited by law. Maybe three at the most? The rest are commandments about forsaking almost everything but constant worship of a jealous God. I don't see how the Bible is reflected in Constitutional law. In fact it's quite contrary to Biblical law and values. Consider the Ten Commandments. Biblical law requires constant reverence of God. If the Constitution were reflecting Biblical law or values, then we would have mandatory school praryer, a national church, and requirements of attending services. None of that is there.

If Biblcial values were reflected in the Constitution, then it wouldn't be set up to protect the people from the government. The Bible teaches to submit to authority and to the government, and certainly not to rebel or question it.

If the Constitution reflected Biblical values, we certainly wouldn't embrace a system of self governance or anything even remotely capitalist, because that has NOTHING to do with Judeo-Christian values. The early Christians were positively socialist, believing that all possessions belonged to the collective Christian faith. They certainly didn't believe in property rights.

Am I being ludicrous by suggesting that the Constitution has almost nothing to do with Judeo-Christian values? I don't think I am. I know that the people have always been predominantly Christian, and by God they posses the full ability to practice their religious beliefs without fear of persecution. Why is that not enough? Why must religion get involved in politics? Why must religious fanatics (and yes I consider Bachmann one) insist that America is God's nation and God's instrument on Earth, and make policy decisions based on that belief? The Constitution allows it, or at least has been legally interpreted to allow it, but I see nothing that leads me to believe that the founders intended it that way.

Add to the fuel is the fact that people, depending on what they are trying to prove, define who the founding father are. For example, I consider Thomas Paine to be a key founder simply becauseCommon Sense was so influential in gaining the support of the commoner in rebelling against Britain. However, most historians do not count him among the key founders. Indy, in an earlier post, seemed to have little regard for Thomas Jefferson, yet more historians undoubtedly count him among the key founders. Those on the side that the founder had no intention of a Christian nation and believed firmly in a separation of church and state are going to site those founders (and many of the keys ones are among them) that have demonstrated a support for that, such as Jefferson, Paine, Adams, and Madison. Those on the side that the founders were envisioning a Christian nation would site those that were in that line, such as John Jay and others of his ilk. I am perfectly aware that the vast majority of the 55 delegates of the Constitutional Convention had a religious affiliation, mostly Protestant with a few Catholics in there. And I have no doubt that some of them would have liked to add religious reference into the Constitution. However, this does not establish in any way that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, nor that the key founders had any intention of doing so. John Adams went so far as to assert that the U.S. was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

Back and forth we go, I know, and that's fine. This is a subject that will never be settled. I value your input, ulthar. I doubt we will do much to sway one another. But it's a fascinating debate.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 06, 2012, 06:56:28 PM

Add to the fuel is the fact that people, depending on what they are trying to prove, define who the founding father are... Indy, in an earlier post, seemed to have little regard for Thomas Jefferson, yet more historians undoubtedly count him among the key founders.

I meant to respond to Indy on the point of Jefferson.  I said Jefferson was unquestionably a Founding Father (and he's almost always considered one---after all, he drafted the Declaration of Independence).  But there is one definition of Founding Father, and it is a logical one, under which Jefferson doesn't count. That is identifying the FFs with the Framers of the Constitution, those who debated at the Constitutional Convention and actually signed the Constitution.  Using that definition would also exclude John Jay, however, and he seems unquestionably to be a Founding Father---he was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers.  As you say, defining who is a "Founding Father" is just another reason "intent of the Founders" isn't a valid category to me.

You may now return to the regularly scheduled religious argument.  :wink:


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 06, 2012, 07:54:51 PM
   I certainly do count Jefferson as one of our Founders!!!!  Personally, I find his conduct towards Washington and Hamilton objectionable, and that is where much of my distaste for him comes - he could be a platitudinous hypocrite at times, pretending to be a loyal member of Washington's cabinet while actively working to undermine Washington's foreign and domestic policies.  Obviously, I disagree with his views of religion, but he is the author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of America's more important and influential Presidents.
   Who are the Founders?  That's not a bad question.  I actually think David Barton defined the term pretty well: those individuals who were Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, the military leaders of the Continental Army, members of the Confederation Congress, delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and members of the early Federal Congress and the Administrations of the first three Presidents.  That makes it sound like an enormous group, but really, there is a lot of overlap among them.  All told, there are probably about 300 people who could be described as the "Founding Fathers" of the United States.  Within that group, there are important subsets - the Framing Fathers, which are the 55 men who met in Philadelphia to create the U.S. Constitution, and the Signers - the  52 who signed the Declaration of Independence.
   I do not discount the Enlightenment at all as an influence on that generation.  It was the most important philosophical, political, and moral trend of the 18th century.  However, The Enlightenment was, in fact, a natural outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation - primarily to the Lutheran rather than the Calvinistic half of it.  Luther said in his testimony to the Imperial Diet at Worms "It is dangerous indeed to force a man to act against his conscience."  The idea that every man was individually accountable to God, and that the State should not force religious behavior on its subjects, is a key Enlightenment concept developed from Luther's early teachings.
   Now, the Treaty that you cite, Flick, has often been quoted by those who want to downplay the influence of Christianity on our Founders and what type of nation that they intended to create.  However, as I understand it - and please accept that it's been awhile since I read the book, and my memory may be flawed here, but I really don't think so - that was an EARLY DRAFT of a proposed treaty that Adams actually REFUSED to sign.  I know that Barton devoted about half a chapter to that quote alone in his book; it's just been a long time since I read it.
  Jefferson was indeed a Deist who was pretty hostile to early Christianity, and frankly, considering the time that he spent in France, where the church had been utterly corrupted by politics, that distaste is pretty understandable.  However, Jefferson's biggest single influence in writing the Declaration of Independence was, by his own admission, John Locke.  Locke was noted Christian thinker and writer as well as a political philosopher.  The man who Jefferson said was his most influential teacher in college was Rev. Roger (?) Witherspoon (I don't have the book in  front of me, but I'm pretty sure I got the first name right).  This man was a devout and evangelical Christian, whose writings on the faith were famous.  And even though Jefferson rejected the Deity of Christ, he regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the greatest moral philosopher who ever lived, and even served at one point as the President of the American Bible Society.
  As far as the Revolution being contrary to the teachings of Christianity - it is very true that the Bible does encourage Christians to be good and obedient Christians.   That would seem to rule out revolutions altogether.  However, many of the leaders of the Revolution were clergymen - some even abandoned their pulpits to pick up a musket and fight for the cause.  The passage of Scripture that was thundered from pulpits north and south to rally Americans for Independence was Galatians 5:1 - "It was for freedom that Christ set us free, therefore stand as free men and no longer be subject to the yoke of slavery."  Especially in the Northern States, the Revolution, at the local level, was led from the pulpit in many cases.  In addition to "No Taxation Without Representation" and "Join or Die," one of the slogans that was carried on banners during those years was "No King But King Jesus."  That one has been left out of many history books, but it is documented.

  Why did the American Revolution produce a stable Republic while the French Revolution produced only a bloodbath, a dictatorship, and then a restored monarchy?  After all, both Revolutions were based on the same ideals, and indeed on some of the same writings.  There have been many books written on the topic, but to my mind, none has answered the question half so well as this: The American Revolution was led by many deeply religious men, and advised and counseled by Protestant clergy.  I think that the powerful influence of Christianity helped restrain the worst impulses of human nature during our founding conflict, and helped create the stability that followed.  Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about America some 60 years later, also commented on the powerful influence of Christianity on public behavior.  The French Revolution was not led from the pulpit, but AGAINST it - one of the acts of the Jacobins was a national ban on the Christian faith, and an attempt to install the worship of reason as a national religion.  Trying to establish the brotherhood of man without acknowledging the Fatherhood of God was a recipe for disaster, something that Hamilton recognized and Jefferson never did.

  I hope this response isn't too long and rambling.  I am not trying to come across as an idealogue, but I have put a LOT of research into the Founding generation, and this is a favorite subject of mine. If we continue the conversation, I'll need to bring a couple of my sources home from work so I can cite them more specifically.  Thanks for everyone's patience with my longwinded musings on this subject!


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 06, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
   I certainly do count Jefferson as one of our Founders!!!!  Personally, I find his conduct towards Washington and Hamilton objectionable, and that is where much of my distaste for him comes - he could be a platitudinous hypocrite at times, pretending to be a loyal member of Washington's cabinet while actively working to undermine Washington's foreign and domestic policies.  Obviously, I disagree with his views of religion, but he is the author of the Declaration of Independence, and one of America's more important and influential Presidents.
   Who are the Founders?  That's not a bad question.  I actually think David Barton defined the term pretty well: those individuals who were Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, the military leaders of the Continental Army, members of the Confederation Congress, delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and members of the early Federal Congress and the Administrations of the first three Presidents.  That makes it sound like an enormous group, but really, there is a lot of overlap among them.  All told, there are probably about 300 people who could be described as the "Founding Fathers" of the United States.  Within that group, there are important subsets - the Framing Fathers, which are the 55 men who met in Philadelphia to create the U.S. Constitution, and the Signers - the  52 who signed the Declaration of Independence.
   I do not discount the Enlightenment at all as an influence on that generation.  It was the most important philosophical, political, and moral trend of the 18th century.  However, The Enlightenment was, in fact, a natural outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation - primarily to the Lutheran rather than the Calvinistic half of it.  Luther said in his testimony to the Imperial Diet at Worms "It is dangerous indeed to force a man to act against his conscience."  The idea that every man was individually accountable to God, and that the State should not force religious behavior on its subjects, is a key Enlightenment concept developed from Luther's early teachings.
   Now, the Treaty that you cite, Flick, has often been quoted by those who want to downplay the influence of Christianity on our Founders and what type of nation that they intended to create.  However, as I understand it - and please accept that it's been awhile since I read the book, and my memory may be flawed here, but I really don't think so - that was an EARLY DRAFT of a proposed treaty that Adams actually REFUSED to sign.  I know that Barton devoted about half a chapter to that quote alone in his book; it's just been a long time since I read it.
  Jefferson was indeed a Deist who was pretty hostile to early Christianity, and frankly, considering the time that he spent in France, where the church had been utterly corrupted by politics, that distaste is pretty understandable.  However, Jefferson's biggest single influence in writing the Declaration of Independence was, by his own admission, John Locke.  Locke was noted Christian thinker and writer as well as a political philosopher.  The man who Jefferson said was his most influential teacher in college was Rev. Roger (?) Witherspoon (I don't have the book in  front of me, but I'm pretty sure I got the first name right).  This man was a devout and evangelical Christian, whose writings on the faith were famous.  And even though Jefferson rejected the Deity of Christ, he regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the greatest moral philosopher who ever lived, and even served at one point as the President of the American Bible Society.
  As far as the Revolution being contrary to the teachings of Christianity - it is very true that the Bible does encourage Christians to be good and obedient Christians.   That would seem to rule out revolutions altogether.  However, many of the leaders of the Revolution were clergymen - some even abandoned their pulpits to pick up a musket and fight for the cause.  The passage of Scripture that was thundered from pulpits north and south to rally Americans for Independence was Galatians 5:1 - "It was for freedom that Christ set us free, therefore stand as free men and no longer be subject to the yoke of slavery."  Especially in the Northern States, the Revolution, at the local level, was led from the pulpit in many cases.  In addition to "No Taxation Without Representation" and "Join or Die," one of the slogans that was carried on banners during those years was "No King But King Jesus."  That one has been left out of many history books, but it is documented.

  Why did the American Revolution produce a stable Republic while the French Revolution produced only a bloodbath, a dictatorship, and then a restored monarchy?  After all, both Revolutions were based on the same ideals, and indeed on some of the same writings.  There have been many books written on the topic, but to my mind, none has answered the question half so well as this: The American Revolution was led by many deeply religious men, and advised and counseled by Protestant clergy.  I think that the powerful influence of Christianity helped restrain the worst impulses of human nature during our founding conflict, and helped create the stability that followed.  Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about America some 60 years later, also commented on the powerful influence of Christianity on public behavior.  The French Revolution was not led from the pulpit, but AGAINST it - one of the acts of the Jacobins was a national ban on the Christian faith, and an attempt to install the worship of reason as a national religion.  Trying to establish the brotherhood of man without acknowledging the Fatherhood of God was a recipe for disaster, something that Hamilton recognized and Jefferson never did.

  I hope this response isn't too long and rambling.  I am not trying to come across as an idealogue, but I have put a LOT of research into the Founding generation, and this is a favorite subject of mine. If we continue the conversation, I'll need to bring a couple of my sources home from work so I can cite them more specifically.  Thanks for everyone's patience with my longwinded musings on this subject!

... I hope this response isn't too long and rambling.
It is. 

JEFFERSON was also very hard on JOHN ADAMS, whose reputation may never recover despite his enormous contributions to World liberty and jurisprudence.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 06, 2012, 10:33:00 PM
That is true, but Adams could and did bring a lot of problems on himself . . . he was a bit too prickly, too use a Southern expression.

My one-line summation of John Adams is that he was an easy man to admire, but a hard man to like.

But hey!  Jeffferson doesn't have his own HBO miniseries, either! LOL

(See, just for you, AHD, a BRIEF response!)


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: lester1/2jr on January 06, 2012, 11:00:12 PM
There is very little difference between bachman and rick Santorum. I dislike both of their foreign policy immensely but basically she happened to peak earlier than he did.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 07, 2012, 10:38:00 AM
Indy,

I'm familiar with David Barton. As a deeply religious Christian man, his so-called exhaustive research into the "forgotten" history of the United States is naturally exhausted toward one end: to establish the founders as framing a Christian nation. I would have to research the claim of Adams refusing to sign a draft that included the line we're talking about. I haven't turned up anything but that the English version certainly contained Article 11, and that was the version that Adams signed. Is it Barton's claim that Adams refused to sign it? Whether that is correct or not, I would certainly question the objectivity of his research.

The religious right would insist that we were founded as a Christian nation and have moved away from it. It's not exactly like Protestantism wasn't predominant amongst the Constitutional Convention. Certainly it was. This is a circumstantial correlary that does not establish a Christian nation intent, as Protestant Christian faith was the predominant religion of the day. While some among the framers would certainly have welcomed Christian reference in the Constitution, there is a reason why it is not there. I also don't understand why the religious right insist that the appearance of the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence is proof of the religious intent of the founders. If it were, then why didn't it say "God" instead of "Creator?" The language reflects an undeniable influence of deism and in no way suggests an intent of a Christian nation.

But in the end the Christians won. I've come to terms with that. The religious right in the U.S. like to paint a picture that the founders set out to create a Protestant Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and that we have slipped away from that. No, the founders tried to create a nation founded on self governance and freedom from tyranny. The Christian moral majority have shoehorned a Christian intent into the fabric. I continue to say that, had the founder intended a Christian nation founded on Protestant Christian principles, this would have shown in the Constitution. I have yet to hear anything about how the principles of the Bible are reflected in the Constitution. I continue to say that the Constitution has little in common with the principles of the Bible, and certainly no resemblance to the practices of the early Christians.

Indy, I know I'm giving you a hard time. That you have referenced the work of David Barton paints a picture that you predominantly read historical interpreters that have a Christian agenda. I don't want to make this assumption, as you may very well have a more well-rounded reading regimen. However, your assertions suggest that your historical perspective is shaded heavily by work of that ilk.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 07, 2012, 05:15:06 PM
That is true, but Adams could and did bring a lot of problems on himself . . . he was a bit too prickly, too use a Southern expression.

My one-line summation of John Adams is that he was an easy man to admire, but a hard man to like.

But hey!  Jeffferson doesn't have his own HBO miniseries, either! LOL...
But ADAMS does not yet have a national memorial (it's coming...)


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 07, 2012, 08:28:06 PM
    I guess I did give that impression, Flick.  However, I have read virtually every biography and history of the founding era that I can get my hands on, including works by David McCullough, Joseph Ellis, Willard Sterne Randall, and Donald Charnow just to name a few. 
    Your question about the Constitution is legitimate, so let me frame it this way:  one of the great Biblical principles that the Protestant Reformation - on the Lutheran side, at least - rediscovered is the idea that every single man is individually accountable before God for his actions, and for his own salvation.  The church cannot save him, his family cannot save him, and no member of the clergy can save him.  Therefore, spiritually, self-determination is what ultimately decides the day.  "God is no respecter of persons," as St. Peter declared.  SO if all men are equal in the eyes of God, and equally accountable for obeying God's laws, therefore all men should be equal before the law, and in each other's eyes.
     NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY is a book that covers this whole idea in a great amount of detail, with extensive research.  Unfortunately I loaned my copy out and did not get it back, so I'm having to fly by memory.  However, it did trace some very important Constitutional doctrines - most specifically separation of powers - back to Scripture.  I wish I still had the book.
    I won't say Barton is not slanted, however, I will say that his research is impressive.  I do agree with you that the founders had no intention of creating a Christian theocracy, and that they obviously intended for there to be a degree of separation between Church and State - as much for the protection of the Church as that of the State, given how corrupt state-sponsored churches generally became!  But I do think our founders would be shocked and horrified at the outright hostility that today's courts have towards almost every form of public religious expression.  There has been at least one case where a High School senior (I think this was in California) was told that if he so much as mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in his Valedictory address, that a Federal Marshal would arrest him on the spot and cart him off to jail, and that he would not be allowed to graduate!  Was that an isolated incident?  In its extent, perhaps, but not in its tone.  All too often, the rulings of the Court since the 1960's have, in the words of Chief Justice William Renquist, "bristled with hostility towards all things religious."  Is there any wonder that Christians sometimes feel persecuted?
    And, as far as the concept that we have somehow fallen away from our Christian roots, Alexis de Tocqueville, touring American in 1832, said that he had seen no nation on earth where marriage vows were more universally kept, and where the Christian religion was so widely and sincerely practiced.  Would anyone touring America today say such a thing?  The Founders may not have intended to create a "Christian nation" in the legal since of the term, but they certainly did create a government designed for a nation of Christians!  Both John Adams and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, made remarks to that effect.
  This is an absolutely fascinating discussion, BTW!


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 07, 2012, 09:03:19 PM
Right.  I was going to post (and now I am  :twirl: ) that it's a far cry from what Jefferson PROBABLY meant in his letter to Danbury Baptist than what we have now.

Jefferson was responding to the concern that church had that they were being edged out...by ANOTHER state sponsored church.  Jefferson sought to allay that concern by saying that the government cannot do that under its own Constitution.

Nowadays, Jefferson would likely have to respond, "I cannot comment on any church related matter."

Separation in 1802 was not like we mean it after the 1947 Court decision...Jefferson's context was separation only of legal INFLUENCE of one over the other.

Sorry, Flick if you disagree with this, but the social and cultural context of Jefferson's statement in 1802 is VERY, VERY different than what that statement is taken to mean today.  Telling someone that the Federal Government is NOT secretly implementing a State-Mandated Church is a far cry from telling school children that they cannot give a corporate prayer before a football game or wish each other "Merry Christmas."

Again...read the language of the Congressional Transcript regarding the very adoption of the First Amendment by the First Congress.  It might help answer the question you posed on the first page of this thread.  Until you've read that, I doubt I can address any further why it is "we" insist that the Christian influence was very real and very clear to those adopting the Amendment you seem to claim had NO basis in Christian identity.

And keep in mind that at least one Congressman at that first Congress did not even want the consideration of ANY amendments on the table at that time.  He saw no need, that the Constitution was, until tested, fine as written.  He did not believe these missing liberties de facto existed.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 08, 2012, 12:12:21 AM
You REALLY need to be right, doncha?   :wink: :twirl:


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 08, 2012, 08:57:59 AM
You REALLY need to be right, doncha?   :wink: :twirl:

 :lookingup:  :teddyr:

Well, since you mentioned that, I gotta say that earlier, 'in the thread' I was thinking it was cool because no one was really trying to 'convince' or persuade...it seemed to me like we were more just discussing, sharing ideas and thoughts as stuff.

So, I'm not trying to be "right" so much as I am not willing to let blatantly "wrong" stand unchallenged.  I am NOT trying to say the 'extreme' of what Flick is complaining about, that the early American political leaders were trying to design a Christian nation.

I am, however, trying to unset the notion that they were not PART OF something that was already mostly a Christian nation.

Beyond that, I love this thread (and discussing with you guys in general) because I learn a TON...if I were "always right," my mind would be closed.  Like Einstein said, once you think you "know" something, your mind closes and you cease all understanding.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 08, 2012, 06:59:57 PM
Quote
Your question about the Constitution is legitimate, so let me frame it this way:  one of the great Biblical principles that the Protestant Reformation - on the Lutheran side, at least - rediscovered is the idea that every single man is individually accountable before God for his actions, and for his own salvation.  The church cannot save him, his family cannot save him, and no member of the clergy can save him.  Therefore, spiritually, self-determination is what ultimately decides the day.  "God is no respecter of persons," as St. Peter declared.  SO if all men are equal in the eyes of God, and equally accountable for obeying God's laws, therefore all men should be equal before the law, and in each other's eyes.

In this case, Indy, I would say that such a Lutheran principle can be seen to have influenced thought of the day, and I can respect that. Besides, denying the influence of the Protestant Reformation has not been my position or goal. The Enlightenment was every bit as much, and some could argue more, influenced by the Renaissance started by the Italians. In addition, the changing of culture in Europe into one that sought freedom from tyranny can be seen much earlier, referencing in particular the Magna Carta, the first document forced on the English monarchy to challenge and limit his power and authority. This was in 1215, well before Luther was even born. So, while the Protestant Reformation is certainly an influence on Western thought, you give it supremacy and originality where none exists. I would argue, and legitimately I might add, that the seeds of change already in motion by the Magna Carta and the early Renaissance were an influence on the Reformation. I mean, you do realize that Da Vinci and the rest of the Italians were challenging the church and sparking the scientific revolution of the Renaissance well before the Protestant Reformation began, don't you?

I'm concerned that you use the phrase "there are no unbiased historians" to give equal credibility to whatever source you would use, including non-historians like David Barton. Barton is an amateur historian at best. While I am sure he is well respected among Christian nationalists and some politicians as an authority, many real historians have dismissed his work as cherry-picking revisionism, in some cases accusing him of outright falsehoods. I don't know from personal investigation, as I don't intend on picking up a book by Barton any time soon. There is a distinct difference between bias and agenda. While historians may have bias, Barton has an agenda. He doesn't research history, he researches any trace of Christian thought amongst the founders that he can get his hands on in an effort to further the Christian nationalist agenda. He has no historical authority. I'll be honest I've have spent some time trying to find any direct evidence that John Adams did not sign the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli, and I can't. I can see no reason to believe that he did not. Is it possible that Barton is making it up?

Quote
Jefferson was responding to the concern that church had that they were being edged out...by ANOTHER state sponsored church.  Jefferson sought to allay that concern by saying that the government cannot do that under its own Constitution.

Nowadays, Jefferson would likely have to respond, "I cannot comment on any church related matter."

I don't argue that some conjecture is necessary when debating, ulthar, but come on. I simply pointed out a verifiable quote by Jefferson and you are interpreting what you think he really meant and what he would have said under current times. Regardless of context or period of time, him referencing the Constitution directly as an example of a separation of church and state doesn't need much conjecture to understand what he was getting at, framer of said document or no.

Quote
Sorry, Flick if you disagree with this, but the social and cultural context of Jefferson's statement in 1802 is VERY, VERY different than what that statement is taken to mean today.  Telling someone that the Federal Government is NOT secretly implementing a State-Mandated Church is a far cry from telling school children that they cannot give a corporate prayer before a football game or wish each other "Merry Christmas."

As much as it may surprise you, I care little about whether or not a football team wants to pray before a game or whether or not they wish each other Merry Christmas. If they want to, more power to them. You can assume my position on a modern Christian nationalist hot-button topic is you want, but I will correct you as to my real position. I concern myself with larger matters. Christian nationalism explicitly intends for modern Christian doctrine to guide public policy. Through voices like David Barton's, they aim to revise history and shoehorn a Christian nation intent in the Constitution that isn't there. They need to do this in order to justify their agenda. They emphasize the Protestant Reformation as the spark that made the Revolution possible when in reality it was simply one of several influences, some of which began well before, and is far from being the primary one. The only reason they do not expressly endorse a national Christian religion is because the Constitution prohibits it. I strongly suspect that the Establishment Clause is the biggest thorn in the sides of the cause of Christian nationalism, and a good thing too. Why do I suspect this? Well, the unfortunate nomenclature, Christian nationalism, is my first clue.

Christian nationalism, in my opinion, is every bit as un-American as socialism, and I use the two as a corellary. Neither of them are either prohibited or supported in the Constitution, yet, there are politicians who would like to use either as a guide to their decisions on public policy. I think we can agree that this much is true. Those with a socialist agenda use their interpretation of the welfare clause of the Constitution as their justification, while the Christian nationalists use their interpretation of the 1st Amendment as theirs.

Christian nationalism and Christian socialism have much in common. The Christian socialists at least understand that the Bible has more in common with socialism than the individualist principles of Western thought since the Renaissance. It’s no small coincidence that the American Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist. The very notion of requiring a pledge of allegiance is about as un-American as you can get. It’s the type of thing that nationalist/socialist nations do. If you took the average Christian nationalist and had them read Christian socialist doctrine and removed any references to it being socialist, they would probably find themselves saying “amen.”

Anyway, I am guilty of the most heinous rambling this thread has seen, but what’s done is done.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Derf on January 08, 2012, 11:02:59 PM
I have been reading this thread with increasing fascination. I have stayed out of it because I am in no way a historian, nor is my area of expertise the American Revolution period. I do not claim to have any inside knowledge of the Founders' intent. I am a Christian, and I do believe that our country was founded by and large on Christian principles, but I am not what Flick is trying to term a Christian nationalist; I believe very strongly that the government should have little say in the founding or practice (or lack of practice) of a religion. But I wanted to throw in my two cents because as I understand your concerns, Flick, I think you are slightly misunderstanding what is meant (at least in my mind) by "Christian principles." I know you have said in other posts that you used to consider yourself a Christian, while now you consider yourself a Deist. I do not recall what you used to claim as your denomination, but it seems to have been a very strict, fundamentalist sect. Anyway, when I claim that America was founded on "Christian principles," I do not mean the strict Biblical interpretation of Christian religious practices. I consider these principles to be more the philosophy of the Bible; that is, the practical, day-to-day teachings on morality, personal responsibility and interpersonal interactions. I am fully aware that these philosophical principles are not unique to Christianity, but Western Civilization has built itself on these philosophical, ethical and moral principles through the context of Christianity. Certainly there are many other influences, but I would make the claim that Christianity is the largest influence on Western thought. It is in this general context that the ideas of freedom and interpersonal responsibilities emerged as fundamental human rights. Please understand I am not claiming Christianity as the sole influence on Western philosophy, but it is among the greatest shapers (if not the single greatest shaper) of Western thought. I will say that the Magna Carta and the Renaissance occurred in the general context of Christianity (and largely in response to the misuse of the Christian religion). Even in their rejection of Christianity, Renaissance philosophers were acting within the framework of Western Civilization. That is, they were rejecting Christianity more explicitly than they were rejecting Islam or Hinduism, and their thought patterns were still very much influenced by Christian philosophy. I realize I am not stating this as effectively as I would like, but I don't want to write a book here.
 
I do not see American beginnings as the birth of a Christian nation, but it most certainly was the birth of a nation mostly of Christians. In what little reading I have done concerning the Founding Fathers, they considered Christianity to be an excellent framework to help the people govern themselves, even if those same Founding Fathers did not themselves profess Christianity. In other words, they seemed willing enough to promote Christian practices to keep the rabble in line, even if they were unwilling to put it in those blunt terms. I don't really know if I am adding anything new or truly worthwhile to this argument, but I wanted to make a point that I haven't seen made yet.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 09, 2012, 12:49:09 AM
Quote
I do not see American beginnings as the birth of a Christian nation, but it most certainly was the birth of a nation mostly of Christians. In what little reading I have done concerning the Founding Fathers, they considered Christianity to be an excellent framework to help the people govern themselves, even if those same Founding Fathers did not themselves profess Christianity. In other words, they seemed willing enough to promote Christian practices to keep the rabble in line, even if they were unwilling to put it in those blunt terms. I don't really know if I am adding anything new or truly worthwhile to this argument, but I wanted to make a point that I haven't seen made yet.

You certainly are contributing something worthwhile, Derf, as have been Indy and ulthar, and Rev. The discussion is getting a bit heated, but I'm confident ulthar, Indy, Rev, and you, share the same basic human respect that I have for you all. I haven't encountered anything but a mature and measured discussion, and if anyone is guilty of being inflammatory, that would certainly be me. "Birth of a nation mostly of Christians" is appropriate, and nothing any reasonable person could deny.

Yes, I'm flattered that you've paid enough attention to my occasional volumes of rambling to notice that I was once a practicing Christian. The church I attended was non-denominational, but largely Evangelical in doctrine. I also attended a merged Baptist/Pentacostal church briefly when I was flirting with returning, because, I had a spiritual need, just as humanity has demonstrated a strong need for through history.

Finding deism was like a breath of fresh air. There I found spiritual fulfillment, and a deeper awe and respect of God and His natural laws than I had ever found before. I can commune with God on the terms of His natural laws alone, and they are more than enough. I'm not saying that I did not encounter some very good people in my church experiences. I did. But I also encountered some of the most shallow, petty, and deceitful people I have ever had the misfortune of knowing. Did that affect my opinion of religion. You betcha.



Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Mofo Rising on January 09, 2012, 01:58:51 AM
I wouldn't worry about "heated discussions." You members who have been debating have been doing so with respect that is pretty uncommon.

I will put this forward. It does not really matter what the original intent of the founders was on these matters. What matters is what is written, because it is very literally the law of the land.

I believe that the original framers of the constitution approached it from a very Judeo-Christian and very Western background. Most of the Revolutionary Generation were staunch Christians, with Jefferson as a bit of an anomaly (not too much I'm afraid). They may have meant the Establishment Clause in ways that were very specific at the time, but they wrote it in ways that continue to resonate in ways that I would argue they didn't foresee.

Forget the original intent, we should argue the laws as they exist today, which everybody does anyway.

If I'm in favor of any view, it's that the local government should represent the electorate. Celebrating something like Christmas is pretty harmless, especially if most of the populace is Christian. It's ridiculous to me that there are wars on the religious expression of Christmas, as if mentioning it was poison, when every single township in America gives December 25 as a paid holiday.

At the same time, if the majority of the populace was either Jewish of Islamic, there should be no complaint when their religious holidays become governmentally mandated. That this has never happened in America is a debate waiting to happen.

It becomes much more queasy when the religious beliefs of a few are mandated upon an entire population, and I think it's this argument that matters more to people than an esoteric argument of what the original founders thought.

That is why Bachmann's particular brand of reasoning rancors as much as it does. It has nothing to do with this fine line of debate that you have all been arguing, it's the belief that her particular view of life, which includes her religion and every opinion that comes with it should be the law of the land.

Just because some beliefs aren't unconstitutional doesn't mean they aren't demonstrably wrong.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 09, 2012, 10:52:03 AM
Great input there, Mofo.

I think the religious fights between the left and the right have become to some extent embroiled in the ever expanding federal encroachment into states' rights. If the states had the constituency-based powers that they should have, then I believe you would see less of an attempt by either to force secular or Christian principles into federal public policy. This expanding federal encroachment is, in my opinion, at the very heart of a level of polarization in America never before seen.

Never before has the "secular vs. Christian" intent of the founders been as adamant and polarized as it is today. The only thing I would alter in your post that I generally agree with, is when you said that it doesn't matter, because the Constitutional law has been established. I would that that this should be true, but unfortunately you have very large groups in America trying to affect Constitutional law to dictate more that should be governed by the states. That's why, although it shouldn't matter, it unfortunately does. The fact that the wishing of Merry Christmas or that a football team wants to say a prayer before a game shouldn't be such a hot-button topic, but it is. Ulthar seemed to believe that I would take a polarized posture on that issue that I don't have. Again, this is how polarized things have become, and it is represented in Congress. We can't get a budget resolution to resolve a deficit that cannot be sustained indefinitely because of this polarization.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 09, 2012, 05:56:36 PM
You said a mouthful there, Flick my friend.
I will say that I think sometimes goals and motivations get attributed to religious people that they don't really have.  Most of the Christians I know would be happy if their kids could pray at school and maybe discuss the Bible in class, and if marriage remained legally defined as a relationship between a man and a woman, but I don't think any of them really want to establish some kind of American theocracy, except for the nutcases like the Westboro goons.  I think that the beliefs of people like Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee get grossly misrepresented in the media on a pretty regular basis.
  And Flick, I may, on occasion, get a bit heated in my exchanges with you, but I hope you  know you are pretty much aces in my book. I appreciate your keen mind and willingness to listen and ask probing questions.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 10, 2012, 12:22:09 AM
Flick (and others), I must say that I have absolutely no beef with you and this discussion.

My only fear in this type of thing is when it seems to be about to become circular - "I know you are, but what am I" or "did not, did too" kind of thing.  We seem to dance with that line occasionally and it makes me nervous, precisely because of the esteem I hold for all of you.

This has been a fascinating thread and a very enlightening (eh hem) discussion.  Flick, please don't make the mistake that I am not taking your comments "to heart" or not learning from them.  I am doing both.

On to a couple of points.

Quote from: FlickJames

I don't argue that some conjecture is necessary when debating, ulthar, but come on. I simply pointed out a verifiable quote by Jefferson and you are interpreting what you think he really meant and what he would have said under current times. Regardless of context or period of time, him referencing the Constitution directly as an example of a separation of church and state doesn't need much conjecture to understand what he was getting at, framer of said document or no.


I did take a liberty by conjecturing what Jefferson would say to that Danbury Baptist question in modern times.  I was merely extrapolating from what I have heard many politicians in these contemporary times say in matters concerning political threats to the First Amendment.  What I mean by that is situations where they would lose political points or even get vilified if their remarks could even remotely be taken to violate the Establishment Clause.

To say that someone would respond "I cannot comment on that because of the Separation of Church and State" is, I believe, not so very far fetched.  Where I err is that perhaps it is EXTREMELY far fetched to surmise Jefferson himself would do this.

That said, I don't think it AS far fetched to 'read into' what he actually wrote in the letter based on the concern he was responding to.  I can understand that you and I may well have a difference "tolerance" or whatever is a good word for how far to take this interpretation.  I think his choice of language should only be measured by the language of his day (ie, "wall of separation" is very poetic, not uncommon in writing at that time, whereas nowadays we take things a bit more literally), but we can disagree on this point.

One thing we agree upon is that we will never KNOW what was in his heart when he penned those words.

Quote

As much as it may surprise you, I care little about whether or not a football team wants to pray before a game or whether or not they wish each other Merry Christmas. If they want to, more power to them. You can assume my position on a modern Christian nationalist hot-button topic is you want, but I will correct you as to my real position. I concern myself with larger matters. Christian nationalism explicitly intends for modern Christian doctrine to guide public policy. Through voices like David Barton's, they aim to revise history and shoehorn a Christian nation intent in the Constitution that isn't there. They need to do this in order to justify their agenda. They emphasize the Protestant Reformation as the spark that made the Revolution possible when in reality it was simply one of several influences, some of which began well before, and is far from being the primary one. The only reason they do not expressly endorse a national Christian religion is because the Constitution prohibits it. I strongly suspect that the Establishment Clause is the biggest thorn in the sides of the cause of Christian nationalism, and a good thing too. Why do I suspect this? Well, the unfortunate nomenclature, Christian nationalism, is my first clue.

...


Okay...all fair enough.  You are responding to a very small subset of the Christian population of this country.  I admit I get a little worried when I see labels like "Christian Right" and "Christian Nationalism" because too often (and perhaps not in YOUR case, but it does occur a lot), these terms are both incorrectly used and used to paint with an overly broad brush.

May we agree that both the "Left" and the "Right" represent extremely diverse spectra of beliefs, not only philosophies but also in terms of beliefs about implementation of things like government?  If so, may we also agree that "Christian" is even becoming a too-broad label in discussions of this type?

I happen to believe that Christian ideology SHOULD guide, or be part of in some way, public policy.  Do I think it should be "law" that everyone attend a Christian Church?  Of course not, only in part because I believe what's in a man's heart is guiding.  Just because his body is in the building doesn't mean his heart followed, and thus the whole thing is likely a farce anyway.

Jesus said that loving God was the most important thing a man can and should do, and loving his neighbor as equal to himself was just as important (philosophical semantic debate on a superlative having an equal to be in another thread).  The second one is the one that is 'codified' in our Constitution as has been more eloquently described by others in the thread.

So, perhaps whether the Founders intended a Christian nation or not is immaterial...what they embraced was aligned with Christian ideals.  (I wholeheartedly disagree that this is aligned with socialism, but won't get into that at present).  What I find alarming the rejection of these ideals in our public policy, these philosophical principles that are Christian but actually transcend the religious practice of Christianity.

Man, I'm botching it.

Let me try an example.

Murder is illegal and carries severe penalties because we assume everyone in our society values human life.  But, Christianity also rejects murder.  The only part we add is that we value human life because God tells us to.  So, does making murder illegal violate the First Amendment because it COULD be argued, to a point, that opposing murder is a Christian ideal?

No, we wouldn't do that because it's too easy to accept the rejection of murder without the Christian aspect.  But, what if there's something else in a public policy debate that is fundamentally Christian in nature, benefits everyone and hurts no one...should THAT be rejected on the basis of the First Amendment (ha, I almost mistyped "Second Amendment" for some reason).

Okay, I'll stop rambling on this now.  Maybe I'll attempt a higher order of coherence later.

Quote from: FlickJames

I think the religious fights between the left and the right have become to some extent embroiled in the ever expanding federal encroachment into states' rights. If the states had the constituency-based powers that they should have, then I believe you would see less of an attempt by either to force secular or Christian principles into federal public policy. This expanding federal encroachment is, in my opinion, at the very heart of a level of polarization in America never before seen.


Man, BIG HUGE MULTI-KARMA for that.  That is right on the money.   :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Quote

Finding deism was like a breath of fresh air. There I found spiritual fulfillment, and a deeper awe and respect of God and His natural laws than I had ever found before. I can commune with God on the terms of His natural laws alone, and they are more than enough. I'm not saying that I did not encounter some very good people in my church experiences. I did. But I also encountered some of the most shallow, petty, and deceitful people I have ever had the misfortune of knowing. Did that affect my opinion of religion. You betcha.


And as queasy as this sounds, I'm very happy for you.  This is wonderful!  I celebrate your spirituality WITH you.  We are probably far more 'alike' than different.

I don't doubt your last statements, there, either.  I know some folks now that give Christianity such a bad name.

At the same time, I know some wonderfully spiritual people that are so inspirational and I'm so thankful for the influence they have had on me.  I count my badmovies friends among that group.

(Sorry for the rambling post).


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Mofo Rising on January 10, 2012, 05:06:45 AM
Okay...all fair enough.  You are responding to a very small subset of the Christian population of this country.  I admit I get a little worried when I see labels like "Christian Right" and "Christian Nationalism" because too often (and perhaps not in YOUR case, but it does occur a lot), these terms are both incorrectly used and used to paint with an overly broad brush.

May we agree that both the "Left" and the "Right" represent extremely diverse spectra of beliefs, not only philosophies but also in terms of beliefs about implementation of things like government?  If so, may we also agree that "Christian" is even becoming a too-broad label in discussions of this type?

This is an excellent point.

I find the entrenchment of left/right, Democratic/Republican ideology much more worrying than any specific religion.

Christianity, probably more-so than many religions, covers are very broad base of beliefs. There are many, many subsets of Christianity, and while they have the same core, they don't all subscribe to the same set of beliefs. For instance, if you are Roman Catholic, surprise, you have no problem with the theory of evolution as it is understood today. There's a couple provisos in there that aren't in the scientific literature, but the Catholic Church has come out in favor of evolution as the primary driver of life on Earth. At the same time, there are many other Christian wings who oppose the idea vehemently.

Left/right ideology ignores these subtleties. The divide, at least as practiced in America, has become different batches of beliefs that don't have any bearing on each other, other than political talking points that political hopefuls can use to gain votes.

Bachmann was very against the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. That's "fine," but it's a belief only put forward by one subset of Christianity. I can see the argument against gay marriage (one I don't agree with in the slightest) as another religious issue. However, since left/right ideologies have been packaged as block beliefs, it concerns me that a debate such as human-driven global warming has also been tied in. No matter where you stand on the issue, global warming has nothing to do with religious identity.

And still all these beliefs are packaged to us as an all-or-nothing deal. Liberal/Conservative politics have become a war of ideals that people are meant to take on faith. But that faith has none of the nuance of the capitalized Faith that religious beliefs foster. Every issue I just brought up should not be a matter of us vs. them mentality. Rather it should be a porous network of discussion and genuine seeking for the truth in matters scientific, religious, and moral.

We get none of that in the current national discourse.

In that sense, why should I care that Bachmann identified herself as Christian? Every candidate does. What worries me is that I don't get any sense that she understands reality out of party lines. Her faith isn't Faith, it strikes me as faith in the party, which has never struck very good dividends in any form of government.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 10, 2012, 09:43:41 AM
Okay...all fair enough.  You are responding to a very small subset of the Christian population of this country.  I admit I get a little worried when I see labels like "Christian Right" and "Christian Nationalism" because too often (and perhaps not in YOUR case, but it does occur a lot), these terms are both incorrectly used and used to paint with an overly broad brush.

May we agree that both the "Left" and the "Right" represent extremely diverse spectra of beliefs, not only philosophies but also in terms of beliefs about implementation of things like government?  If so, may we also agree that "Christian" is even becoming a too-broad label in discussions of this type?

This is an excellent point.

I find the entrenchment of left/right, Democratic/Republican ideology much more worrying than any specific religion.

Christianity, probably more-so than many religions, covers are very broad base of beliefs. There are many, many subsets of Christianity, and while they have the same core, they don't all subscribe to the same set of beliefs. For instance, if you are Roman Catholic, surprise, you have no problem with the theory of evolution as it is understood today. There's a couple provisos in there that aren't in the scientific literature, but the Catholic Church has come out in favor of evolution as the primary driver of life on Earth. At the same time, there are many other Christian wings who oppose the idea vehemently.

Left/right ideology ignores these subtleties. The divide, at least as practiced in America, has become different batches of beliefs that don't have any bearing on each other, other than political talking points that political hopefuls can use to gain votes.

Bachmann was very against the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. That's "fine," but it's a belief only put forward by one subset of Christianity. I can see the argument against gay marriage (one I don't agree with in the slightest) as another religious issue. However, since left/right ideologies have been packaged as block beliefs, it concerns me that a debate such as human-driven global warming has also been tied in. No matter where you stand on the issue, global warming has nothing to do with religious identity.

And still all these beliefs are packaged to us as an all-or-nothing deal. Liberal/Conservative politics have become a war of ideals that people are meant to take on faith. But that faith has none of the nuance of the capitalized Faith that religious beliefs foster. Every issue I just brought up should not be a matter of us vs. them mentality. Rather it should be a porous network of discussion and genuine seeking for the truth in matters scientific, religious, and moral.

We get none of that in the current national discourse.

In that sense, why should I care that Bachmann identified herself as Christian? Every candidate does. What worries me is that I don't get any sense that she understands reality out of party lines. Her faith isn't Faith, it strikes me as faith in the party, which has never struck very good dividends in any form of government.

 :thumbup:

This is exactly why, depending on the crowd and the issue, I have been called all kinds of contradicting names in my life. If I'm in a predominantly liberal crowd, I often get called a conservative, and vice versa. My problem is that I have no problem with confrontation and I take a stand. Because of this, and because some of my beliefs are unorthodox, what I get from most people are either labels that have little to no resemblance to my actualy beliefs, or just wierd looks. Occasionally I get somebody who gets me, whether they agree with my views or not. There's a guy I work with whom I couldn't disagree with more, especially in terms of religion. Yet, he is one of those rare people who, whenever I contribute something to a discussion, he stops and listens, because he seems to get me. These kinds of things are always refreshing to a guy who usually just gets wierd looks.

All that said, you guys, all of you, are all in my cool book, and I would say that this has been one of the single most fascinating off-the-beaten-path threads I've seen come along the ol' green board in a long time.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 10, 2012, 12:27:02 PM


This is exactly why, depending on the crowd and the issue, I have been called all kinds of contradicting names in my life. If I'm in a predominantly liberal crowd, I often get called a conservative, and vice versa.



This brought a smile to my face. Not because I am reveling in your pain, but because, well...

You dudes all know where I stand on the "political spectrum" at least 'on the surface.'  I've been called a hippy and just two days ago, was called a "tree hugger."

This particular example came about because I made the statement that I think our town has enough restaurants, enough roads and enough shopping opportunities.  I said I did not want more, and asked the question "what would more bring to the community?"

The person I was talking to, a decidedly and staunch political liberal who was arguing for Olive Garden because she "likes to eat there and wants one in town," called me a tree hugger.  She was smiling, but it was very clear it was a "dig."

It's really funny how this stuff works some times.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 10, 2012, 03:00:34 PM


This is exactly why, depending on the crowd and the issue, I have been called all kinds of contradicting names in my life. If I'm in a predominantly liberal crowd, I often get called a conservative, and vice versa.



This brought a smile to my face. Not because I am reveling in your pain, but because, well...

You dudes all know where I stand on the "political spectrum" at least 'on the surface.'  I've been called a hippy and just two days ago, was called a "tree hugger."

This particular example came about because I made the statement that I think our town has enough restaurants, enough roads and enough shopping opportunities.  I said I did not want more, and asked the question "what would more bring to the community?"

The person I was talking to, a decidedly and staunch political liberal who was arguing for Olive Garden because she "likes to eat there and wants one in town," called me a tree hugger.  She was smiling, but it was very clear it was a "dig."

It's really funny how this stuff works some times.

I hear ya. You should see what my dedicated pro-laissez faire-capitalist views do for me. They alienate me from both liberals AND conservatives. It's strange to think that pro-capitalist views would go against conservative Republican grains, but it's happened on multiple occasions.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 10, 2012, 04:07:54 PM
Quote
Most of the Christians I know would be happy if their kids could pray at school and maybe discuss the Bible in class

Well, Indy, I don't doubt that they would. However, why should that be important to them? If they are a Christian family, isn't it safe to say that their children are getting exposed to Biblical discussion through their family and church? Why would it benefit them to have more at school? Even if I were a Christian, I would not want the state discussing religious beliefs with my child. What if the school is discussing religious principles that I object to? That is not only possible, but likely, given how much denominational conflict over Biblical ideals that there is in the world. And let's not even get into religions besides Christianity. Where to they figure in in all of this? No, Indy, it's best to leave it to families and churches. Othewise, I can't reason for a moment how it would NOT be a violation of the Establishment clause.

No, wanting to mandate ANY kind of religious study, discussion, or prayer in school is not intended by the Christian right to cater to already Christian families. Those kids already have their exposure. Instead, it is intended to expose kids from non-Christian families to Christian doctrine. Remember, Indy, I am a former Christian. I am well aware that the dominionist principle is part of a Christian's obligation. This is why Christians cannot be satisfied with simply having the freedom to practice their religious beliefs without fear of persecution. This is not enough. They must reach every man, woman, and child on Earth. This is at the very heart of Christian nationalism. Whether a Christian openly aligns themselves with Christian nationalism or not, ultimately, with few exceptions, ALL Christians are dominionists.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 10, 2012, 09:13:45 PM

 What if the school is discussing religious principles that I object to?


That's what education is supposed to be...exposure ideas and thoughts and opening of minds.  As a Christian, I welcome discussion on/about other faiths, both for myself and my children.


Quote

 And let's not even get into religions besides Christianity. Where to they figure in in all of this?


Well, I went 4-12th grade in public schools (admittedly, a few decades ago now), and we DID talk/study rather extensively other religions.  This was in a VERY fundamentalist rural region of the Bible Belt, too, not a 'progressive' city.

In Fourth and Fifth grade at least, Social Studies classes were spent studying Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and even some exposure to Shintoism and Taoism.  Along in there somewhere, perhaps Grades 5 and 6, were very detailed studies of Greek, Roman, Norse and Egyptian mythologies.  I also remember huge blocks of time devoted to Confucianism (not really a religion, I guess).

Notably absent were detailed studies of Judaism and Christianity.  Nowhere was even an historical presentation of the role of Christianity in Middle Ages.  I vaguely remember hearing the Crusades being mentioned, so there probably was some of that...but it MAY have come during the study of Islam.

It's a little off the subject, but does related to my point above, that a friend of mine attended a Catholic college and by his accounts, he had some of the most stringent, detailed scholarly studies of "other" religions one can imagine.  That's a private school, though, so admittedly another kettle of fish completely.

The only reason I bring it up is that it is not fair to assume that any (and certainly not ALL) Christians who might campaign for more exposure (or at least not 'anti-exposure') to Christianity in the schools are opposed to this being a level playing field across the board.

I've NEVER personally heard even the most staunch, vocal advocate of prayer in schools that I know say that they want it only for Christians and not the free practice of any faith.  I have heard such people advocate for "free exercise of faith" in the schools, and mean free for all.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 10, 2012, 11:06:57 PM
It is very late and I just put in a 14 hour day, so I'm gonna be kind of brief.
One of the huge problems I have with the court-ordered secularization of the classroom is that the enormous influence of Christianity on Western Civilization is passed over with very little mention in many state curriculums.  Schools are so afraid of being sued by someone for stepping on the incredibly long toes of the Establishment Clause that they almost completely disregard one of the single most important spiritual, religious, intellectual, and philosophical movements in the history of the world.  This is further compounded when religious OTHER than Christianity get all kinds of coverage in the classroom.
  I teach at a private Christian school, and most of the secondary history curriculum falls in my lap.  So I talk about Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Darwinism, and many other faiths and philosophies in my class.  Our science department teaches extensively about the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory and how the science of origins intersects with the realm of faith.
  97% of our graduates go to college - and most, I might add, to public universities, not religious ones.  It just saddens me when I see students coming into my Community College history classes that I teach at night so profoundly ignorant of both history and religion.  The court-enforced secularization of the classroom in the public schools has resulted in a much poorer grasp of our Western heritage by a huge percentage of American High School graduates.  Now, why their math scores suck so badly, I have no idea . . . . :question:


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 10, 2012, 11:30:01 PM

 Now, why their math scores suck so badly, I have no idea . . . . :question:



I can address that one.  We've come to call it "monkey chow" education.  The system is BROKEN.  Period.

The current institutional system does not seek to teach refinement of the mind.  It seeks to teach the quickest reward for the least effort.

Couple of anecdotes:

(1) About 15 years ago, I was teaching in a college department and near the end of the school year, we were evaluating two students for receiving our "Outstanding Senior" Award.  The two candidates were (a) a young woman who was there all the time, helped teach classes and labs, tutored underclassman (to the satisfaction of her supervisors) and had high B and low A grades, and (b) a young man who got solid A's but, as one prof put it, "he does all it takes to get his A, then no more."  B also tutored underclassman, but the teacher (me) whose classes he tutored for was VERY dissatisfied with his tutoring effort and results.

I voted against (b).  But, he got the award.  No good reason was given.  All they did was reward his minimal effort.

(2) I'd like to shoot the grade book of the elementary or high school science teacher who coined the term "human error" for student lab reports.  That's mental laziness - tell me WHAT error the human made or shut up about it.  Countless student papers and test responses I received contained drivel like this that required no thought whatsoever and it was all because of "conditioning."  "This is how you write a lab report, and if the answer does not match what I tell you to expect, write 'human error.'"  Eek.

(3) We've been involved with consulting for the major science and math textbook publishers..yes, the big dogs that have the US markets cornered...and both the products they offer and the process they use to produce them is CRAP.  Garbage.

They are moving toward something akin to 'online content' and it is nothing more than glorified NickJR flash games but with fancy 'educational' names.  Now, I'm talking COLLEGE math - algebra, calculus, linear algebra, etc.  They are being taught "point and click the answer  whether you know it or not."

(4) Ever thought about the instructions you are told for standardized tests?  If you solve the problem and don't see your answer, pick the one closest, or some variation of that?  That's not teaching math...that's teaching a test taking trick.

Monkey chow.  Sit and play the game, and when the bell rings, do what we've told you to do.  You'll get your reward - your ration of monkey chow for the day.

Oh man, Indy...can of worms.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 11, 2012, 09:47:52 AM
Quote
That's what education is supposed to be...exposure ideas and thoughts and opening of minds.  As a Christian, I welcome discussion on/about other faiths, both for myself and my children.

I appreciate that. That wasn't really what I was addressing, however. If we're talking about exposure to religion for it's historical and cultural impact, that's just plain history. Students should learn history, and should certainly know the basics behind the major religions of the world. That wasn't really what I was talking about. I was more addressing Indy's comment about Christian parents wanting their kids to be able to discuss the Bible in class. My question was, why would they need that if they are already exposed to it through their family? The only motivation for discussing the Bible, at least as far as how I believe Indy means it, is to make sure all kids get exposed to Christian principles. If religion were taught as an exposure to the world that would be great, but unfortunately some would use the opportunity to indoctrinate, and that's why people have an issue with it. People jump to conclusions that there's this big cultural Marxist machine trying to eliminate religion from the world. No, it's people and their reactions to situation, many of which are irrational unfortunately, that create these s**tstorms, and then the public reacts in their typical fashion.

My fix to the problem would be to just leave religion out of elementary school altogether (public schools, that is). I don't trust teachers with it anyway. If most people are honest I don't think they trust them with it either, especially with the kinds of people that are being giving teaching licenses these days. I am a college advisor for people wanting to become teachers, believe me, I know. Wait until the kids at least reach middle school, then you can start hitting them with cultural studies that would include exposure to religion. Let their minds mature a little. In high school if they are interested in learning more about religion, I don't have any problem with that, even in the public schools. High schools have electives, don't they?

Despite my dogged defense of the Establishment Clause, I am in equal support of free exercise. I think these issues of prayers at football games or saying Merry Christmas are as ridiculous as you find them. However, the religious right likes to parade isolated events. They like to say that free exercise is not allowed in public schools. Some even go so far as to suggest persecution. Are they serious? Let's ask those millions of Jews and Christians who were fed to lions, burned at stakes, beheaded, etc. for their religious beliefs what they think about this terrible persecution of Christianity going on in America. Good grief. Despite some silly situations that happen, how many people are really being persecuted or restricted from practicing their faith?

Part of the issue here is that Christianity believes firmly in spreading the Gospel, part of the dominionism I was talking about in my earlier post. This is not something I'm making up. This is a real thing. I visited the official site of the Southern Baptist Convention and they had a page dedicated to bemoaning the hostility toward people of faith in public schools. Two of the points on the page were to encourage a resolve to "vigorously and aggressively to seek all means by which they may share the love of God with their fellow students" and "exercising their religious liberties for the furtherance of the Gospel." This is where is starts causing issues and why people get upset. Christians want to indoctrinate. Christian need to indoctrinate. It is part of their belief and obligation to their faith. So what happens is that it's not enough to be able to believe and practice what they believe in without fear of persecution. Instead, they want to be free to indoctrinate in class, because that is part of their faith. If the teacher tries to direct the class back to math, is he/she limiting free exercise then? Do you see any other group in the U.S. other than Christians making a big deal about free exercise in public schools? If there are, I don't hear about them, or at least they are not as loud or dominant as Christians are. It still being the predominant faith in America is a factor, sure, but still. I believe a bigger factor is that most other religions are not as adamant about spreading their faith as part of their belief structure.

It gets complicated and sticky. It doesn't bother me much that fights over these matters take place. That's just Americans being Americans. I have my own version of what crosses the Constitutional line in public schools and other people have theirs. That's why it gets so damned sticky. It's not as simple as "good vs. evil" or "us vs. them."


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Derf on January 11, 2012, 11:21:09 AM

Despite my dogged defense of the Establishment Clause, I am in equal support of free exercise. I think these issues of prayers at football games or saying Merry Christmas are as ridiculous as you find them. However, the religious right likes to parade isolated events. They like to say that free exercise is not allowed in public schools. Some even go so far as to suggest persecution. Are they serious? Let's ask those millions of Jews and Christians who were fed to lions, burned at stakes, beheaded, etc. for their religious beliefs what they think about this terrible persecution of Christianity going on in America. Good grief. Despite some silly situations that happen, how many people are really being persecuted or restricted from practicing their faith?

Part of the issue here is that Christianity believes firmly in spreading the Gospel, part of the dominionism I was talking about in my earlier post. This is not something I'm making up. This is a real thing. I visited the official site of the Southern Baptist Convention and they had a page dedicated to bemoaning the hostility toward people of faith in public schools. Two of the points on the page were to encourage a resolve to "vigorously and aggressively to seek all means by which they may share the love of God with their fellow students" and "exercising their religious liberties for the furtherance of the Gospel." This is where is starts causing issues and why people get upset. Christians want to indoctrinate. Christian need to indoctrinate. It is part of their belief and obligation to their faith. So what happens is that it's not enough to be able to believe and practice what they believe in without fear of persecution. Instead, they want to be free to indoctrinate in class, because that is part of their faith. If the teacher tries to direct the class back to math, is he/she limiting free exercise then? Do you see any other group in the U.S. other than Christians making a big deal about free exercise in public schools? If there are, I don't hear about them, or at least they are not as loud or dominant as Christians are. It still being the predominant faith in America is a factor, sure, but still. I believe a bigger factor is that most other religions are not as adamant about spreading their faith as part of their belief structure.

It gets complicated and sticky. It doesn't bother me much that fights over these matters take place. That's just Americans being Americans. I have my own version of what crosses the Constitutional line in public schools and other people have theirs. That's why it gets so damned sticky. It's not as simple as "good vs. evil" or "us vs. them."

You make some good points here, Flick, but I'm not sure I can agree with some of your terminology. I can see why you use the terms "indoctrinate" and "dominionism," but I don't think they are accurate, at least not in my experience. I am (technically, at least) a Southern Baptist. I say technically because, while I do attend a Southern Baptist church and have not found an organized denomination that suits me better, I have no qualms in disagreeing with the stauncher members of the denomination when I feel they are mistaken. In other words, I don't walk any "party lines," but rather I practice my faith as well as I am able based on my own convictions. Now to why I disagree with your terminology: In a nutshell, I think you are using too strong a term with "indoctrinate." Yes, Christians attempt to proselytize. However, it is supposed to be through compassion rather than through forceful persuasion. I am fully aware that some who call themselves Christians are jackasses (okay, a lot of them are) and feel it is okay to pressure people into Faith. Those people might be justifiably accused of attempted indoctrination. But just as the members of Westboro Baptist Church do not represent the true spirit of Christ (whatever they may claim), neither do those who try to pressure others into becoming Christians. I understand that I may be opening an entirely different can of worms with this claim, but I stand by it. As for "dominionism," again, I see why you use the term, but, also again, I see it as too strong a word for what most Christians realistically want. In an ideal world, all people would have similar values and a similar belief system, and, yes, Christians promote their views in order to achieve that end. However, realistically, we know that it isn't going to happen, and that the responses of others are not our responsibility. In other words, yes, Christians dream of a Christian world, but it is not our place to try to force it into being.

On a separate note, you seem to be mixing two issues (I may be wrong on that, but that is what it seems like to me). I agree with you that public schools should not teach religion. At all. There is a difference, however, in students being allowed to talk about religious beliefs with other students while at school. That is free practice. And the Constitution allows that as far as I can tell. However, in practice, school administrators are so paranoid about lawsuits that they restrict free practice in order to placate a vocal minority who seem to simply want to eliminate religion altogether. Neither understand the Constitutional realities, and, as a result, a mild form of persecution results. All sides are basically whining about not getting their way, and no, it doesn't compare to the martyrs for Christendom, but it does still amount to a form of persecution. Another point: That same ignorance concerning the Establishment Clause also often prevents schools from teaching the historical impact of Christianity on our culture in general, which you say you support (as do I). I remember noting back in my high school world history class that Jesus got all of one sentence in the text book. I understand the disputes over the historical Jesus vs. the Jesus of the Church, but either way, the teachings of Jesus pretty much formed Western Culture. I can't think of any one person who has had a greater philosophical, moral and religious impact on the world (okay, Mohamed and Buddha come close, but not in Western Culture), and yet a fear of breaking the Establishment Clause relegates him to a passing mention. I find this highly disturbing, but I am not sure what the solution should be since Jesus is so tied to both history and religion. It would be a fine line to teach the impact of his teachings on the world without also teaching what he said. As you note, it is a sticky problem.

On a final note (and to end my current ramblings), I would point out that Islam is at least as bent on proselytizing as Christianity, and more Muslims are willing to resort to coercion to get the job done. And such coercion seems to be in line with at least some readings of their religion. While similar things have occurred in the history of Christianity, I can at least say with certainty that such methods are not condoned anywhere in the teachings of Jesus.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 11, 2012, 11:59:40 AM
Derf,

I think we may be beginning to split hairs here, but I enjoy the occasional cleaving of follicle-generated dead cell strands, so fine by me.

You have contributed grandly to the last point of my previous post in just how sticky this thing gets.

I will disagree about “indoctrination.” Perhaps the word carries strong connotations to you, but it is a perfectly valid definition that applies to teaching fundamental or rudimentary ideals. It’s not like I said “brainwashing.”

Look. I am a deist, or, at least that set of beliefs resonates closest with me. I realize that I am a social misfit in that regard. I’s used to it. I also have kids. I realize that they are going to get exposed to religion. Be I in the minority or not, I do not trust teachers to guide discussion or instruction in those matters, but I think we are in agreement with me on that point. As for free exercise, fine. I know that my children are going to run into religious classmates and friends and some of them will attempt to influence them about their faith, just as happened when I went through school many times. This does not bother me in the slightest. If some level of ostracization occurs in public schools, I’m not going to get too upset about it. I’ve lived most of my life being ostracized, and I’m no worse for the wear. Believe me, I’m in full support of school vouchers and parents being able to send their kids to private or religious schools that they normally wouldn’t be able to afford if they don’t like the way the public schools are run. Hell, I don’t like the way they’re run either. However, I’m not entirely convinced that there is an alarming level of “persecution” going on. That sounds rather melodramatic to me.

Whether or not all Christians, or even the majority of them, observe the dominionist obligations of their faith, I’m familiar enough with the Bible and Christian faith to know that it is a very integral part of the belief structure. If indoctrination is too strong a word, I will try to find a gentler one. But you having issue with this perfectly appropriate word is precisely what I’m talking about regarding how sensitive this issue gets. If I can’t even use the word “indoctrination” without it ruffling some feathers, how is a solution even possible? It would seem EVERYBODY has thin skin these days, not just the minority of people that you claim are making the stinks. I know I’m giving you a bit of a hard time about that, but don’t take it personal, I do that to everybody, especially if it’s Indy.  :wink:

Anyway, several posts ago I had intended to make my last post on this topic, and here I am. If there’s one thing I’m guilty of, it’s not being able to get enough of a stimulating discussion. To everyboyd, please take that as a compliment.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Derf on January 11, 2012, 12:39:53 PM
No real feather-ruffling on my part, Flick. I just tend to see "indoctrination" more often used as a synonym for "brainwashing" than in its literal sense. Your clarification is appreciated. And as for who is making the stinks (besides Trevor's underpants), I think it is all sides in the debate; there are no wholly innocent parties. Throwing it all back to the "U.S. education sucks" argument, I think it mostly has to do with poor communication skills. As a (former) teacher of writing and literature, I can attest to the constant lowering of standards in written communication.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: ulthar on January 11, 2012, 01:16:56 PM
Jackasses, the lot of ya!   :bouncegiggle:

(For the humor challenged, that's a joke based on something Derf posted a few posts ago...)

Flick,  I'm perfectly comfortable with the terms indoctrination and brainwashing.  That's all ALL education is.  Let's be honest with ourselves about that.

Where I get rankled on this topic is when I'm accused (not by you, I'm talking outside this discussion) of brainwashing my children when the accuser does the exact same thing.  I can accept that I am indoctrinating or brainwashing them into things like respecting all life on this planet above the love of money as well as things like pray to God to help guide the decisions you make in your life.

What I cannot accept is being somehow singled out for those things because someone else thinks either money is more important than trees (that is, land development is justified on the basis of profit) or God does not exist so prayer is a waste of time.

What the HELL is the difference?

The passing of knowledge, wisdom AND belief is indoctrination.  So, use that term  if you want.

But....there is a problem with extending that concept of indoctrination to perceived notions of what my ACTIONS will be, and I do think that's critical in the issues you have raised.  The Bible might contain the "Great Commission," but how I act on that is what matters.

It does not say "go out and slaughter the non-believers."  The Great Commission might be taken as a 'goal,' but there's a whole heap of verbiage also devoted to how to act toward others.  The Bible commands me to use my mouth to "lift up, not tear down" and yes, words matter.  How then could I justify saying something like "so and so is not as good as me because he does not attend a Christian church?"  Did Jesus EVER say "only love other Christians?"  No, I seem to recall some very specific language about "enemies" and loving "your neighbor" without qualification about who that neighbor is.

No doubt that a lot of Christians do exactly that kind of tearing down.  That does not make it either right or God's intent with the Great Commission.

Further, or maybe this is what I already said, the command is to share "The Good News."  It says make an example of your life.  Is me telling someone about my faith a crime?  Is it wrong for me to share my faith with you or anyone else?  It seems like you are in part putting the burden on me to "shut up about what you believe" just because sometimes (okay, maybe often) 'sharing' is abused.

There was an awful lot about what Jesus taught and how he lived that stands in direct contrast to how Christianity is practiced - historically and today. 

And every word of this pertains to "Separation" and it has been discussed regarding "free practice" in the schools.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 11, 2012, 06:06:44 PM
I am just imagining how fun it would be to sit around a table with a large pizza in the middle, a pitcher of cold beverage, and me, Flick, Derf, and Ulthar batting this topic around all day (the rest of you could sit at the next table and listen).  We need to do that at some point.
Till then . . . .


 :cheers:

to all of you!


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Flick James on January 11, 2012, 07:28:29 PM
I am just imagining how fun it would be to sit around a table with a large pizza in the middle, a pitcher of cold beverage, and me, Flick, Derf, and Ulthar batting this topic around all day (the rest of you could sit at the next table and listen).  We need to do that at some point.
Till then . . . .


 :cheers:

to all of you!

Would this include the throwing of pizza toppings and/or beverages at each other? If so, count me in.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on January 11, 2012, 11:00:06 PM
I'd rather bombard the folks at the next table, but hey!  I'm easy. :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Mofo Rising on January 15, 2012, 05:12:34 AM
Since we're bandying terms like "indoctrination" around...

This has nothing to do with government mandated education, which is a whole different kettle of worms, but my own personal education.

There was this documentary a few years ago called "Jesus Camp." The idea behind the documentary was how atrocious it was that there are people that sent their kids off to a pro-Christian camp every summer. At that camp they spent many hours of every day being exposed to what is called "fundamentalist Christianity," as if that was necessarily a bad thing. The documentary had all sorts of heavy music cues to heavily weight it as creepy. It was feted with rewards.

I don't find the camp creepy at all. Sure, the counselors had a bizarre fascination with politics that rested a bit uneasy, but there is nothing wrong with trying to bring up your kids within you own belief system. It isn't evil, nor is it "indoctrination," it is the natural order of things.

That being said, I went to a Christian summer camp every summer for most of my pre-teen years. It was a normal camp, with a church aspect, we went to chapel every night. I can recall very vividly crying my eyes out when a "fire and brimstone" preacher gave one night's sermon.

Here's the thing, that most affected me when I was eleven or twelve, as it would affect anybody at that age. I moved on from there, and very quickly. The beliefs fostered on me during that period mean nothing to me. Nothing; it has ceased to matter.

Now I'm not saying that those beliefs don't matter, and that there aren't people who have since taken it to heart. Far from it, I'm saying that it matters less than people think.

I'm saying I went from sobbing from fear that my soul might be damned to an eternal sense of doubt about almost everything. "Indoctrination" isn't always what is sounds like. Others may have gone on to a resolute belief, I went on to whatever you would call me. "Indoctrination" doesn't always take.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Allhallowsday on February 23, 2016, 11:55:42 PM
karma trail... I'm often following karma trails...


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: indianasmith on February 24, 2016, 07:41:40 AM
Thread necromancy!  :bouncegiggle:

I sure miss Flick James, though.


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: javakoala on February 24, 2016, 07:40:50 PM
Thread necromancy!  :bouncegiggle:

If AHD brought this thread back from the dead, does that make this a zombie thread now?


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: Archivist on March 05, 2016, 12:57:38 AM
I know that BadMovies has a primacy of American members, but I'm wondering why this is in Film News?  Is she an actress or director?


Title: Re: Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
Post by: lester1/2jr on March 06, 2016, 06:43:05 PM
I find her really sexy. I wish I knew why so I could have it treated