America: The founding fathers' Nightmare?

Discussion in 'History' started by aaqucnaona, Dec 1, 2011.

?

What is your Beilef in God? [See Ps. Below]

  1. Personal God

    18.5%
  2. Agnostic

    29.6%
  3. Atheist

    37.0%
  4. Deist

    11.1%
  5. Spinoza's God

    7.4%
  6. Nontheist

    7.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Its well known [just read their quotes on religion] that the founding fathers of America were not just secularists but also extremely anti religious, and almost certainly predominately agnositics and atheists.

    Quote: The fact that the United
    States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the
    terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George
    Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797:
    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 tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never
    have entered into any war or act of hostility against any
    Mehomitan 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. *Dawkins, the god delusion.

    Again, from the same source:
    I find the following advice of Jefferson, again in his letter to
    Peter Carr, moving:
    Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which
    weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in
    her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every
    opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a
    God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
    the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

    But big Bush left no doubts when he said that Atheists aren't citizens or patriots, citing "One nation under God". One has to only replace atheists with Jews or Moslems to see the extreme injustice done here.

    Take the government, of all the 5000 or so core personnel in the overall administration, there is an overwhelming probabilty of atleast a 10% share of Atheists, given that its over 15% for the public and over 92% among leading biologists. Yet we know of not 1 who is an Atheist. That there are none is just impossible, u dont qualify for the best chairs in the world without a brain to match, and 43 out of 45 studies have showed that people with greater IQs have lower belief in religion and one has to look not farther than the scientific intelligencia in the last few centuries. {As we'll see on my post on Science and Religion}.

    Here, I dont protest religion or support atheist but severly condemn the overwhelmingly negative and irrational response to atheists and the ease with which people have forgotten secularism while remembering, very clear, the freedom of speech. I will, in a future post explore the inappropriately important status given the religion, particularly exempting from law those would cite their afflience to it.

    Its perhaps a great irony in western history that Britain, which started out with a single unfied church with political backing and a religious outsight is not one the most secular, if not downright non-religious countries in the world while America, with all the noble intentions of its founders, is now one of the few countries where religion holds such importance and plays so strong a part in the daily lives of its citizens.

    Perhaps Dawkin's urge to Atheists to come out is timely, if not quite overdue.

    Ps. the poll:
    Personal god:Monotheistic/ Polythiestic god, listens prayers,etc.
    Agnostic:Uncertain of His existence.
    Atheists: Maintain there's no god.
    Diests: A non personal god, created the universe but doesnt work thereafter.
    Spinoza's God: Pantheism, einstein and Stephen Hawkin's God.
    NonThiest: Buddhists and other nondeity faiths.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Come out? I've been talking about my non belief for decades now and no one has ever stopped me from doing so. I'd think that those who do believe should be given the same respect as me because they have just as much right to believe in something as I have the right not to do so and we get along just fine.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RedRabbit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    139
    Just a few points:

    1. Of the 55 delegates of the Constitutional Convention 52 of them were Christian. So I can't fathom how they were " certainly predominately agnositics and atheists. "

    2. They weren't "anti-religious" just anti State religious. Any one of the States could have been a theocracy if they so wished. In fact it was the Baptists in particular that pushed through the idea that State and church should be kept separate, not the atheists and agnostics.

    3. There are certainly very few openly atheistic members of government, but then again what would you expect. A religious group behind you is a very powerful and influential group to have behind you come election time. Do we really know all the personal beliefs of all American representatives or just those ones that declare it. Declaring atheistic leanings in many States would be political suicide. You'd be better off being a black gay circus clown. It boils down to the idea that people of faith don't inherently trust atheists.

    4. Britains' head of state is also the head of the church. Both houses (parliment and the Lords) start each day with prayers. A large number of their schools are Church of England affiliated. How is it more secular? Do you mean the general population is more apathetic towards religious affiliation? :shrug:
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    U mean they were born in Christian families. Like I said, their quotes on religion leave no doubt about their, um, feelings for the chruch and the abrahamic God.

    Britain is, indeed, secular in the sense that religion [rightly so] holds very little importance in the lives of the general public. The religious traditions are [for most people] no more than "social conventional practises".

    Yes, they were, atleast against the christian chruch tradition and the power of the church. Quote Jefferson: "In all ages, priests have been the oppressors of freedom".
     
  8. LoRaan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    One or two quotes taken out of context does not an entire lifetime of belief make.

    Just becuase they believed that religion had no place in governing people does not mean that they themselves eschewed religion.

    Hell, Kennedy was a devout Catholic but he outright said as president his first duty was to his country and if he had to violate his catholic beliefs to do what is best for the nation then he would ask forgiveness after violating them.

    Besides in my opinion Bush is a step up from Obama's 'if you don;t support what i do you are unamerican' attitude. Not a big step mind you, bt a step.
     
  9. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Look em up, there are lots and lots of pages full of quotes by jefferson and washinton and admas and others, who, regardless of their belief in God, maintian that organised religions are not good for the freedom of the people.
     
  10. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    I think we have a different view of history. It isn't necessarily organized religion that they fought against, it is the Jesuits and the Zionists that they were concerned about.

    All educated leaders knew the threat that Jesuits posed to the freedom of the business, academic and government communities. Likewise, they also clearly were aware of the behind the scenes machinations that the Zionists in the financial and investment communities posed to the economic freedom of the nation. Already at this point in history the Zionists were tearing the nation apart with slavery and lobbying to create a national central bank. Meanwhile the Jesuits wanted a federal/national government that the papacy/globalists could exert influence over.

    The crown wasn't having any of this.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    very bad choice of words.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Why? It's not unlike the gay rights movement.
     
  13. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    As I get older I find myself being more of an apatheist. I consider the question irrelevant. If there weren't people trying to shove their mythology into the laws that govern my life and the science classes of our public schools, then the topic would seldom come up in my day to day life.

    BTW - I do find it relevant to note that the Treaty of Tripoli was ratifed by a unanimous vote in congress. (How many times has that happened?)
     
  14. LoRaan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    Jefferson was admittedly an Atheist. He also kept many slaves and slept with many of female slaves fathering many children that he did not claim. Not exactly the most moral of people.
     
  15. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Why is it the a bad choice?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Think about it, 500 or so people running the US had to Lie in order to get there. Dawkins aptly put it when he said "the Politics of America are loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest", refering to the studies which showed a inverse relationship between IQ and beilief in a personal god.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Which crown? Jesuits never had a majority in any Anglican state.

    What crown is contemporaneous with Zionism? Queen Elizabeth? Her Father?


    As several of them were Deists. Hence, the Declaration says: “…and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal stations to which the laws of Nature, and Nature’s God entitle them…”

    This is straight-up Deism, not Christianity. Of course a majority of the delegates to the conventions were Protestant. Apparently they found this tolerable.

    I like “the Laws of Nature.” They were clearly giving credit to folks like Newton.
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Jefferson was not an Atheist.
     
  18. aaqucnaona This sentence is a lie Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,620
    Indeed. He was a deist. But from a religious prespective, he is equivalent to an atheist.
     
  19. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,002
    I think there is a big difference between an atheist (believes god is a fantasy) and a deist (believes in god, but doesn't belong to a particular religious group).
     
  20. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    Using the basic definitions, a deist is not an atheist. But neither is it close to christianity or other organized religions. It's more of a naturalist point of view while still believing in an initial creator of the universe, who doesn't intervene after creation. So many things that a deist would consider so would an skeptic who might be an atheist. They just disagree on the god part.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    from another web site I'm on ;

    hopefully this will bring America back to its senses
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2011
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I interpreted that to mean that the government needs to be impartial in terms of using religion as the basis for its relationship with other countries, like that of the Musselmen. This was practical advices since religion often becomes, my way or the highway, and could lead to strained relationships. There was secular advantages in this practical thinking.

    This is not to say the average citizen could not still believe what they wanted, because of the separation of church and state. The citizen can still have his religious views, but the policy of the government will remain neutral.

    As an analogy, a company can have a certain policy for corporate dress such as a white shirt and black tie. When you are on your own time, you can take the white shirt off and the company cannot tell you what to do. There is a separation between job and home. If you work for that company you have to follow the rules when on its premise. But after work, that does not apply. We have a government for the people and by the people, making the government second in terms of individual rights which can include religion. There is a separation but for the people slants it slightly to the people and not the government.

    The election process allows people to pick anyone they choose. If religion has an impact on these choices, the government cannot restrict this choice even if the people make that choice. They don't work for the government. The government can only separate the religious affect, when that person takes office. However, that elected official can still use their spiritual POV to influence secular choices in an indirect way, such as on their own time. Since the people have a slight edge in terms of this indirect influence in government (on their own time) and the government cannot restrict religious freedom of the individual, the country evolved via the people, many of which migrated here to practice religious freedom.

    Big government creates the illusion we are a country, by the government, for the government. If this was true, it would give the government the slight edge; servant leads the master to become the master. But this is not in the Constitution.

    If you look at a Christmas tree, people who work for government are under the separation clause. But if I don't work for government, I am under no obligation to follow these separation rules, since I am the tax payer or boss. Only our public servants, who is our interface with the world, needs to be practical minded and impartial. That is only true when on the job but not at home. Since they are at home 16 and work 8, individuals freedoms including religion has an edge.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    true

    but the point was in my last post is that governing should not be about god or influenced by god
     

Share This Page