The End of Christian America

Satya, that was actually addressed for you. For fear of being taken into the mainline upper thread, I left your name out. Should have expected something like that from the peanut gallery on Easter. I see I am being blocked from quoting you again. My computer at my other location with the routers does not have that problem. I must get this one fixed.
:m125:

From what I've gathered in various threads, you seem to think that you know a lot about the history of America and that it somehow supports your point of view and anyone who doesn't support you point of view must then know very little or nothing about America's early history.

I find the article below to be an especially good piece on the question of whether or not America is a "Christian nation". For someone who seems so interested in the history of our country, it might be a good read for you.


Surveys reveal that an overwhelming majority of Americans classify themselves as Christians. There is, therefore, a sense in which it is correct to say that America is a Christian nation. It would also, in the same sense, be accurate to call it a white nation or a right-handed nation. All of these descriptive assertions are equally valid, and equally inadequate and misleading.

The religious right, however, believes that America is a Christian nation in an additional sense. It believes that Christianity is somehow integral to the Founding Fathers’ conception of what the country should be. This belief is quite mistaken. It is little more than a convenient myth created to buttress other familiar claims of the religious right—that prayer should be allowed in public schools, or that sectarian schools and charities should receive state support.

What evidence do members of the religious right bring forward to support their view that Christianity is somehow part of the nation’s foundations? They are eager to call our attention to the Declaration of Independence, in which God is indeed invoked, yet they seem to think it self-evident that the God mentioned in that document is their God. In fact, that is very unlikely.

One must bear in mind that Jefferson, the presumed author of the Declaration, held religious views that, though shared by many Enlightenment intellectuals, were regarded by orthodox Christians as equivalent to atheism. Late in his life, Jefferson tried to clarify his views on religion by producing a sort of scrap-book version of the New Testament. He cut out and pasted into a blank book those passages of Scripture that he regarded as believable. He never published this “personal Bible,” which he titled “The Life and Morals of Jesus.” He seems to have kept it solely for his own use.

What is striking about its contents is what is missing: there are no passages describing Jesus’ divine parentage, his miracles, his claim to be the son of God, or his resurrection. In other words, for Jefferson, Jesus was entirely human. He was a moral teacher, not the Christ or Messiah, and certainly not God.

The God in which Jefferson did believe was a totally impersonal being; a god whose only job was to establish the laws of nature and set the universe in motion.

In the Declaration’s first sentence, Jefferson refers to “Nature’s God.” This was a common way for deists like Jefferson to distinguish between the God they accepted and the one they rejected—the God of Revelation. Perhaps Unitarian-Universalists would be satisfied with Jefferson’s God; it is highly unlikely that those on the religious right would recognize it as the God they worship.

It is noteworthy that the religious right rarely cites the United States Constitution in support of its “Christian nation” claim. That’s understandable, for the Constitution, which is arguably our nation’s only founding document, is entirely secular in content. God is never invoked, or even mentioned. Religion is discussed only twice, and where it is substantively addressed—in the Bill of Rightsthere is an explicit prohibition of government interference in the religious affairs of the citizenry.

That prohibition means not only that the government cannot favor one religion, or sect, over another, but also that it cannot “…constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, (or) aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs” (Supreme Court: Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961).

In other words, the Constitution is not only firmly neutral with regard to Christianity, it shows no preference for belief over non-belief.

We can only draw the conclusion that America, while it may be Christian in a demographic sense, is resolutely non-Christian in a governmental sense. This must be so if we are to honor the Founders’ vision of a nation that respects the right of each citizen to believe, or not believe, as he or she chooses.

 
Last edited:

:m125:

From what I've gathered in various threads, you seem to think that you know a lot about the history of America and that it somehow supports your point of view and anyone who doesn't support you point of view must then know very little or nothing about America's early history.

I find the article below to be an especially good piece on the question of whether or not America is a "Christian nation". For someone who seems so interested in the history of our country, it might be a good read for you.


You are so kind with the way you put things it makes me want to rush in and read this. Everyone should read tovlo's posts and possibly learn a bit about communication skills. May I ask your source or a link to it?
 
You are so kind with the way you put things it makes me want to rush in and read this. Everyone should read tovlo's posts and possibly learn a bit about communication skills. May I ask your source or a link to it?

JM, was that sarcasm? I didn't know you had it in you.

Frankly I'm not surprised that you don't want to read it. Some people only look for information which agrees with their point of view.

By the way, if anyone is interested in the Jefferson Bible or learning more about Deism and how it related to our founding fathers, look to the links below...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
 
Last edited:
JM, was that sarcasm? I didn't know you had it in you.

Frankly I'm not surprised that you don't want to read it. Some people only look for information which agrees with their point of view.

I agree.

And mods, people, ect. Call me on this if this is out of line, but I have to say it. Just Me, you are very similar to mayflow in alot of ways.
 
We just had a thread last night from one of the mods asking for sources and/or links when starting a thread. I feel it appropriate to at the very least identify one's source when quoting something.
IS, I have no comment about your opinion. I, too, notice things.
Is the Jefferson Bible, then, the source of your information? Might I ask where it is from should I not have the time to read the entire Bible?
 
Last edited:
Satya, thank you for at least waiting til Easter was over for that. Yesterday was so inappropriate. Please do not read sarcasm into that.
 
We just had a thread last night from one of the mods asking for sources and/or links when starting a thread. I feel it appropriate to at the very least identify one's source when quoting something.
IS, I have no comment about your opinion. I, too, notice things.

The article was written by Leornard Hitchcock, a professor emeritus from Idaho.

Is the Jefferson Bible, then, the source of your information? Might I ask where it is from should I not have the time to read the entire Bible?

Wow! The fact that you would pose that question demonstrates perfectly how dedicated you are to ignoring information that contradicts your point of view. If you had read the article, or even the first link, then you would know the history of the Jefferson Bible.
 
The article was written by Leornard Hitchcock, a professor emeritus from Idaho.



Wow! The fact that you would pose that question demonstrates perfectly how dedicated you are to ignoring information that contradicts your point of view. If you had read the article, or even the first link, then you would know the history of the Jefferson Bible.

No comment.
 
I visited a small church at a local hospital this morning before the crowd came and said my prayers in silence and solitude. I felt somewhat of a pull to go there and was receptive. When leaving, I went out a different way through a side door leading outside. I passed a small fountain with seats and a memorial on the ground amongst the garden and fountain, in memory of a woman whose vision and acknowledgement of others' needs outweighed those of her own. As I walked further I came upon a statue of Mary, where I cleaned the birds' droppings from her head. It was such a nice perch, I thought, so well to have the birds come to rest there. I left in peace.
I have no anger with this statement. I wish you could have shared this morning's experience with me. What is it so interesting about a red rosebud this morning;
unopened, yet having been picked from its plant, I wonder. Could it simply be a gift of love?
As I was saying earlier....
God can accept me, though I have most likely sinned more than most here possibly because of my age. I feel a new thread forthcoming. Visions
 
Just Me, you ARE dodging things, just in the way that sayta has pointed out. I understand you are very steadfast in your belief systems, I am as well. Nevertheless, I will forgo them when needed be. You are just justifying my belief that you act like mayflow when it comes to being presented something that challenges you.
 
Just Me, you ARE dodging things, just in the way that sayta has pointed out. I understand you are very steadfast in your belief systems, I am as well. Nevertheless, I will forgo them when needed be. You are just justifying my belief that you act like mayflow when it comes to being presented something that challenges you.
Now I will answer...please give me a moment.
Many months ago I stated I would not read three books given to me, along with my reasons. Before I read something someone has copied and pasted(I so wish I knew how on this website to do), I like to know what I am getting into first. Had there been a link or something in regards to a source in the first post, I would have had absolutely no problem reading it. That is my only reason.
I question using too much salt. I question pouring salt into wounds. I question verbose banter as a means of communication when trying to make a point. I have my own ways of communication and I may not readily call them skills.
There are communication skills that do bother me. I will admit to that. I will not stoop to it.
I will not quote Proverbs to try and make myself feel big or bigger than whomever I am jousting words with. It is not my style. It does bother me, though, when confronted with it.
please allow me to finish
For example: the style Duty used when I first came here affronted my mente/mind. It was somewhat of a bother just trying to read his posts. I have been able to make peace with that and now look forward to his "Spock" way of looking at things. I like what he brings to dinner.
I will not succomb to what I feel as being baited to show my disrespect for Satya or you, IS.
The fact is I disagree with specific things about both of you, but that is neither here nor there. The two of you know this and feel the same toward me. I know this. I choose to make no comment because I know the pull of a maelstrom. I understand the pull of a current at the beach. I wish to remain here whether everyone wants me to be here or not. I need to place a Thermacell near my computer so I will not forget there are forces out there(I did not say people or specific person or persons) that do not care for the light that shines within me. The fact some here do not like me does not bother me. I have been rejected by more than I could possibly state. I can deal with that.
What I would rather do is compare things without the inuendos. It would be so nice to talk and compare as if I were talking or comparing with someone as receptive and full of understanding as I see in tovlo. I am learning from her responses. I hope to be able to be as receptive of others one day as tovlo. I said we all could learn from her, that including myself.
I am as slow to anger as anyone else could imagine. That may not be healthy for me, but it is a way of life I have chosen. Words are something I can control much better than most things.
If I ever get angry, I will step away from the computer before I place a rope around my neck for being banned from a forum. I do wish to seem obtusive, but rather in control of my self.
I wish others to treat me likewise when at all possible. thanks for your patience for a two-fingered typer
 
Last edited:
:m146:

So you posted a comment just to say "no comment"?

"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact."

-George Eliot

I have been so much more made fun of and ridiculed than that, so I need not say anything as I am accustomed to it in the world.
 
Thanks for explaining. I really do appreciate that.

At this point you are right, it is a major difference in communication style, and the way information is processed.
 
Had there been a link or something in regards to a source in the first post, I would have had absolutely no problem reading it. That is my only reason.

Excellent, I provided you with the source...

The article was written by Leornard Hitchcock, a professor emeritus from Idaho.

I await to hear what you have to say on the matter.

The fact some here do not like me does not bother me. I have been rejected by more than I could possibly state. I can deal with that.

I don't know why you feel persecuted. My issue is with your arguments, particularly your lack of ability to substantiate what you say, and your refusal to acknowledge information that challenges your conceptions. I have nothing against you, I'm simply demonstrating your beliefs have no backbone to them.
 
Last edited:
Excellent, I provided you with the source...



I await to hear what you have to say on the matter.



I don't know why you feel persecuted. My issue is with your arguments, particularly your lack of ability to substantiate what you say, and your refusal to acknowledge information that challenges your conceptions. I have nothing against you, I'm simply demonstrating your beliefs have no backbone to them.

I do not feel persecuted by you, Satya. I find it most difficult discussing things with you because of your style. Mind you, I am neither making fun of you nor your style. I feel the pricking of a thorn in your words; "lack of ability", "refusal to acknowledge", "challenges my concepts", and "no backbone" for example. I cannot speak so freely on this forum or I may end up like Mayflow.
I cited numerous quotes from many that signed the Declaration of Independence. I cited quotes from many of our forefathers. My view is the mindset of our forefathers. My argument is not that which you make it to be, but rather that of their purpose. I actually have no argument. I cannot find the time to respond to your questions without interruption to my statements before the point has been made. I am somewhat challenged with my abilities typing and using copy/paste procedures. I would like to play a game of chess with you on the internet where each person makes one move every other day. I could discuss things maybe better with you like that. I have a lot of responsibilities and they require time. It bothers me when I cannot type everything I want to type without having part of it jumped on before I can finish. I would ask that you as a favor for me should you wish to have an exchange of quotes that you quote the entire context I have written instead of breaking it into little parts and pieces. I cannot copy your answers and my questions at the same time for the next post. Maybe we could limit the amount of space for each quote into just one group of not more than four sentences each.
Maybe we could ask that nothing be copied and pasted but rather typed into existence here. I am quite interested in gathering quotes, but wish to do just that at the very first few days and allow others to join in so it can be more of a forum thing. My interest is the mindset of our forefathers when they came here. I can mettle with your interest also. What is your interest? Can you give me time to elaborate without slicing and dicing my content?
 
I cited numerous quotes from many that signed the Declaration of Independence. I cited quotes from many of our forefathers. My view is the mindset of our forefathers. My argument is not that which you make it to be, but rather that of their purpose. I actually have no argument.
I cannot find the time to respond to your questions without interruption to my statements before the point has been made. I am somewhat challenged with my abilities typing and using copy/paste procedures. I would like to play a game of chess with you on the internet where each person makes one move every other day. I could discuss things maybe better with you like that. I have a lot of responsibilities and they require time. It bothers me when I cannot type everything I want to type without having part of it jumped on before I can finish. I would ask that you as a favor for me should you wish to have an exchange of quotes that you quote the entire context I have written instead of breaking it into little parts and pieces. I cannot copy your answers and my questions at the same time for the next post. Maybe we could limit the amount of space for each quote into just one group of not more than four sentences each.
Maybe we could ask that nothing be copied and pasted but rather typed into existence here. I am quite interested in gathering quotes, but wish to do just that at the very first few days and allow others to join in so it can be more of a forum thing. My interest is the mindset of our forefathers when they came here. I can mettle with your interest also. What is your interest? Can you give me time to elaborate without slicing and dicing my content?

I posted quotes from the actual author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, of which you refused to read. As well as quotes from other founding fathers which disproved your claims. Your mindset is not that of the founding fathers. Your mindset is that of the modern religious right. I also posted an article which articulates exactly why this is the case. That article explains how Thomas Jefferson was considered virtually an atheist in his time due to his deistic beliefs, which were shared by many of the founding fathers including James Madison, and that he compiled his own Bible, the Jefferson Bible.

To be frank, you were more than a little condescending when you insinuated that just because people didn't share your point of view, they must not have a grasp of the history of this country, especially since you have demonstrated that you don't have the knowledge of history to be speaking about the founding fathers.
 
No further comment, Satya. I cannot discuss things in this manner.
 
Ok, you just lost my respect again. He just told you what you are doing, and you won't look.

Don't be angry. This is what religion does to people. It makes them close their minds to the world. The more I see it, the more at peace I am because the more assured I am of the validity of my position.
 
Back
Top