Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it was formed for money and power. reiligion, like fire, cars, and guns are only tools. Or should I say "horses". They can help or hurt a nation. When they are helping, they aint my problem.
Well, it is not a wacko claim. Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention to force an end to abortion of any kind and that you actively support politicians who do the same? (despite the fact that the country is divided 50-50 on this issue)
Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention to deny the same civil marriage to same sex couples and that you actively support politicians who do the same? (despite the fact that MORE than 50% of the nation now supports same sex marriage)
Actually, there are any number of non-religious people who oppose abortion, people such as Nat Hentoff or Christopher Hitchens. And I belong to a denomination of Christianity that supports same-sex marriage.
Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention that anyone who wishes to deny commerce (selling from a business) to a {fill in the blank--such as "same sex" or "muslim" or "black" or "Indian"} person for their religious beliefs should be allowed to do so--and that you are actively working to get politicians to do the same?
Actually, I do. This is complete paranoid fantasy on your part. Oh, sure, there might be some wing nut out there who cites religious beliefs as a reason to discriminate, but no.
Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention to put the ten commandments on every courthouse lawn and return CHRISTIAN prayers to schools and that you actively support politicians who do the same?
Actually, the large majority of Christians full understand and appreciate the separation of church and state.
And even if you deny some or all of these intolerant viewpoints, guess what? You are in bed with those who do. And a man is certainly seen as a part of the company he keeps.
Actually, that says a great deal more about your lack of ability to think than anything about us. Because you are lumping in everyone who is Christian into the same boat, regardless of the extremely diverse views. Lumping in a Unitarian with a Primitive Baptist is the hallmark of someone who doesn't know much about the faith.
Religious intolerance scarcely existed before the rise of monotheism. Ancient polytheistic religions worshipped numerous gods but never involved doctrinally precise professions of faith. There was no such matters as orthodoxy or heresy. The gods were mutually tolerant of one another, and the worshippers were eclectic, moving from one shrine or cult to the next without the slightest feeling of inconsistency. In Tarsus, where Paul grew up, as in all the towns of the ancient world outside of Judea, the gods were not jealous. They insisted that they must be offered punctiliously all honors due to them, but they did not worry about what honors were paid to other gods or men. Much later, Attila the Hun allowed members of his horde to follow whichever gods they wished, so long as they didn’t interfere in each other’s freedom of worship. Attila was more a model for religious tolerance than fundamentalists in any religion are today.
This raving bunch of nonsense is a massive bluff. In truth, it demonstrates breathtaking ignorance of history. Obviously, you've never heard of Nero. Or Diocletian. Or Trajan. Or Hadrian. Or Marcus Aurelius, Decius, or Valerian. These Roman emperors are just a few who actively persecuted Christians during their reigns. Paul and Peter were executed in Rome. Of the twelve apostles, only John seems to have died a natural death. The rest were put to death by Romans, Persians, Ethiopians, and Indians.
Tell you what. Actually learn some classical history before you presume to type another screed on the religious tolerance of the ancient world.
There are a lot of people who mistakenly believe the United States was founded in order to practice religious freedom. But history tells a different story. It appears to have been founded so that religious sects could practice intolerance toward other religious sects---and it happened frequently. Protestants against Catholics, Catholics and Protestants against Jews, Puritans against the Quakers--and on and on.
In certain parts of early America the only ones allowed to vote were Puritans. That doesn't appear to be religious freedom. In fact, Puritans routinely rounded up Quakers for rigged trials and even executed a few.
The fact is when President Obama extolled the virtue of religious freedom by defending an Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York four years ago, he was inadvertently paying homage to a vision touted by politicians and preachers for more than two centuries--that America has always been the home of religious tolerance.
The earliest record of religious intolerance occurred even before the Mayflower arrived with their own brand of intolerance. The French Huguenots (Protestant) came to America in search of religious freedom and founded a colony in 1564 at Fort Caroline (near Jacksonville, Florida). The Spanish had other ideas. In 1565, they established a forward operating base at St. Augustine and proceeded to wipe out the Fort Caroline colony. The Spanish commander, Pedro Menendez de Aviles, wrote to Spanish King Philip II that he had "hanged all those we had found in [Fort Caroline] because---they were scattering the odious Lutheran doctrine to these provinces." When hundreds of survivors of a shipwrecked French fleet washed up on the beaches of Florida, they were put to the sword beside a river the Spanish called Matanzas ("slaughters"). In other words, the first encounter between European Christians in America ended in a blood bath. History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian (October, 2010)
The arrival of Pilgrim Puritans in New England in the early 1600's was indeed a response to persecution these dissenters had experienced in England. But the Puritans themselves did not tolerate opposing religious views. They established a theocracy that accepted no dissent either religious or political.
From its earliest days Puritan Boston banned "Papists," (Catholics) along with others who desired religious freedom. Indeed, four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to the city.
When George Washington sent Benedict Arnold on a mission to court French Canadian support for the American Revolution in 1775, he cautioned Arnold not to let their religion get in the way. "Prudence, policy and a true Christian Spirit will lead us to look with compassion upon their errors, without insulting them," he told Arnold. After Arnold betrayed the American cause, he publicly cited American's alliance with Catholic France as one of his reasons for doing so.
There are many other interesting examples of religious intolerance including riots, murders, executions, banishment, that simply plague our early history.
The problem is not resolved even today as fundamentalists are attempting to return to a theocracy that tells us what religious viewpoints to teach in schools, how civil authorities should view marriage, why the "religious" freedom to be intolerant toward groups they do not like is perfectly acceptable (and even "godly") and that intolerance of their freedom to be intolerant is itself a "crime."
Opinion: This kind of religious fanaticism remains probably the greatest internal threat to freedom in the United States today.
What other kinds of historical records can we show about religious intolerance in America and how it lessened us as a people? Are there any forms of religious intolerance that have a positive influence? (and please show documentation, preferably in the form of data)
Freedom of religion was probably a happy accident. By the time the you get to the writing of the Constitution, there was just too much relgious diversity. The writers of the Constitution came from Europe, where religious intolerance by government was commonplace. But who do you favor? Puritans? Anglicans? Catholics? Lutherans? Quakers? No religion held a significant majority. So they rolled with the First Amendment in hopes that everyone would get along. It's worked out pretty well so far.
Freedom of religion was probably a happy accident. By the time the you get to the writing of the Constitution, there was just too much relgious diversity. The writers of the Constitution came from Europe, where religious intolerance by government was commonplace. But who do you favor? Puritans? Anglicans? Catholics? Lutherans? Quakers? No religion held a significant majority. So they rolled with the First Amendment in hopes that everyone would get along. It's worked out pretty well so far.
Actually, the authors of the Constitution were inspired by the Enlightenment, which sprang forth as a result of the religious violence of the Reformation, the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, and a host of others atrocities done in the name of Christianity.
There is no mention of Christ or Christian in the Federalist Papers, and Christianity is only mentioned as an aside during a discussion of the Germanic tribes. The only mention of deities were classical ones.
And, in the Declaration of Independence, the terms Creator and Nature's God were bywords of the Enlightenment and the Deists. In fact the phrase, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness was the motto of the American Enlightenment.
One glaring one is the intolerance toward native American faith exemplified in the San Carlos School and in the California Missions. Sorry, I'm about to climb into the bathtub, but there are a lot of people who can supply particulars.
California Missions were founded by Spaniard solders under the direction of Jesuit priests, who had no connection to the American revolution.
They captured, tortured, enslaved and killed many in the name of Spain and Papal rule. An entirely different topic, then the OP.
This raving bunch of nonsense is a massive bluff. In truth, it demonstrates breathtaking ignorance of history. Obviously, you've never heard of Nero. Or Diocletian. Or Trajan. Or Hadrian. Or Marcus Aurelius, Decius, or Valerian. These Roman emperors are just a few who actively persecuted Christians during their reigns. Paul and Peter were executed in Rome. Of the twelve apostles, only John seems to have died a natural death. The rest were put to death by Romans, Persians, Ethiopians, and Indians.
Tell you what. Actually learn some classical history before you presume to type another screed on the religious tolerance of the ancient world.
Wow, what an appalling lack of study of history. Christians were never persecuted to the extent Christians claim--at least historically--except by one another.
From Candida Moss, professor of NT at Notre Dame University--
Quote:
Although anti-Christian prejudice was fairly widespread in the church’s first 300 years, she (Ms. Moss)writes, “the prosecution of Christians was rare, and the persecution of Christians was limited to no more than a handful of years.”
Q: You (Ms. Moss) argue that modern myths of Christian persecution are rooted in an ancient myth, and you focus on Pliny, a first- and second-century Roman who governed what is now Turkey. Why should we know about him?
A: He’s the first Roman official to actually talk about Christians. He writes to the Emperor Trajan and says, “What am I supposed to do about them? They’re not doing anything wrong, but when they’re in the courtroom they’re very stubborn.” Those charges could get you killed in the Roman world. And Pliny has other concerns: Christians were not purchasing the meat associated with the Roman temples. And he thinks of Christians not as a religious group, but prone to superstition, which the Romans considered a kind of madness that could spread like a disease.
Pliny and Trajan agree that there will be no seeking out of Christians, but if they do end up in courtrooms and are stubborn, he will give them three chances to curse Christ and make a sacrifice in the Roman temple. If they don’t, they will be killed. I’m not saying what Pliny did was right, but it’s very far from the story I grew up with, about Christians being hunted down.
Basically the majority of "persecution" of Christians is because they wouldn't obey Roman laws.
Incidentally, not one word of the "execution" of Christian disciples is founded in solid history. It's all based on "church traditions." The church had plenty of reason to push forward the "we are persecuted" bluff--just as many churches still do today in America.
Quote:
Most of our information about the deaths of the apostles is derived from early church traditions.
Taken from a very, very conservative website---http://bibleprobe.com/apostles.htm
Now in other countries, primarily Islamic, there is certainly persecution. But in the United States of America almost all persecution has been from one religious group toward another.
Freedom of religion was probably a happy accident. By the time the you get to the writing of the Constitution, there was just too much relgious diversity. The writers of the Constitution came from Europe, where religious intolerance by government was commonplace. But who do you favor? Puritans? Anglicans? Catholics? Lutherans? Quakers? No religion held a significant majority. So they rolled with the First Amendment in hopes that everyone would get along. It's worked out pretty well so far.
There was actually some debate over freedom of religion and we owe James Madison a great deal of the credit for keeping the federal government out of it. The Colony of Virginia was absolutely established with a theocracy.
Quote:
Virginians did not cross the Atlantic Ocean to create either a "city on a hill" or a place where different religious faiths would be encouraged. In colonial Virginia, there was no expectation that church and state would be separate, or that dissent would be encouraged by government officials. Perhaps in part because of rivalry with Catholic Maryland, Virginia was often hostile to Catholics. Samuel Argall destroyed a French colony of "Papists" in Acadia in 1613, and only one Catholic was elected to the House of Burgesses during the colonial era.
In 1775, at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches. Although establishments took a variety of forms, they generally entailed the state providing favorable treatment for one denomination—treatment which often included financial support. Members of religious denominations other than the
official established church were usually tolerated, but they were occasionally taxed to support the state church, and some were not permitted to hold civic office.
Madison was actually one of the early founding fathers to be concerned about the attempt to establish a "national" religion. In 1774, prior to war breaking out, he wrote to Gov. William Bradford--
"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
We see this occurring today as fundamentalist churches attempt to hijack the government for "religious" purposes.
In 1785, Madison spoke to the Commonwealth of Virginia in a message entitled A Memorial and Remonstrance, "Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. "
It is very disturbing today to see the same attempts by denominations to take control of government. And to paraphrase Madison today, "During almost eighteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits?----"
The move by religion to hijack Congress and the Presidency, even the judiciary, is the most dangerous occurrence in our history. For it is unlikely we will fall from an outside source, but, as Samuel Adams wrote in 1771, "The tragedy of American freedom, it is to be feared, is nearly compleated. A tyranny seems to be at the very door. It is to little purpose, then, to go about coolly to rehearse the gradual steps that have been taken, the means that have been used, and the instruments employed to encompass the ruin of the public liberty. We know them and we detest them. But what will this avail, if we have not courage and resolution to prevent the completion of their system."
Today, as in every age of the United States, their are religious groups attempting to challenge the freedom of the many for the avowed purposes of a few. It is now fundamentalists who nationally and internationally in at least three different religions which are attempting to impose their will upon governments and thereby on every single person under their control. Never doubt their sincerity. Never doubt their commitment. But be very afraid of the consequences should they win.
Actually, the authors of the Constitution were inspired by the Enlightenment, which sprang forth as a result of the religious violence of the Reformation, the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, and a host of others atrocities done in the name of Christianity.
There is no mention of Christ or Christian in the Federalist Papers, and Christianity is only mentioned as an aside during a discussion of the Germanic tribes. The only mention of deities were classical ones.
And, in the Declaration of Independence, the terms Creator and Nature's God were bywords of the Enlightenment and the Deists. In fact the phrase, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness was the motto of the American Enlightenment.
It wasn't without a fight. Nine of thirteen colonies had an "established" church and even taxed citizens to support the established church, and, in some cases, refused public office to those who did not belong to the established religion.
Quote:
In 1775, at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches.
Quote:
Although establishments took a variety of forms, they generally entailed the state providing favorable treatment for one denomination—treatment which often included financial support. Members of religious denominations other than the official established church were usually tolerated, but they were occasionally taxed to support the state church, and some were not permitted to hold civic office.
The radical change in the meaning of religious freedom greatly concerned many in 1787. William Williams of Connecticut was appalled when he first read a draft of the proposed United States Constitution. The merchant and delegate to the Connecticut Ratifying Convention expected to see in the document's preface language similar to that found in the Fundamental Orders, some acknowledgment that the new republic rested on a Christian foundation and depended upon divine providence. Instead he saw no hint of the nation's religious heritage: no mention of God, no appeal to divine guidance, no pledge to build a godly society.------
Unlike Williams, James Madison applauded the new federal constitution for its contribution to religious life in the new republic. To him, it safeguarded religious freedom for all citizens by eliminating the government's voice in ecclesiastical matters. He regarded religion as a "natural right" that the governed never surrender to their governors. Further, he thought that "true" religion would triumph by its own merits if its advocates were free to pursue it without coercion. To Madison, "the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States" was the surest guarantee of "the sacred principle of religious liberty." History was filled with examples of unholy alliances between church and state as religious and political leaders sought to curry each other's favor for their own selfish ends. Indeed, the Puritan Fathers themselves had fled England when Charles I's strict enforcement of religious conformity violated the Puritans' liberty of conscience. While Williams was primarily worried about America as a "Christian Nation," Madison was more concerned about America as a haven of religious liberty.
Well, it is not a wacko claim. Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention to force an end to abortion of any kind and that you actively support politicians who do the same? (despite the fact that the country is divided 50-50 on this issue)
Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention to deny the same civil marriage to same sex couples and that you actively support politicians who do the same? (despite the fact that MORE than 50% of the nation now supports same sex marriage)
Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention that anyone who wishes to deny commerce (selling from a business) to a {fill in the blank--such as "same sex" or "muslim" or "black" or "Indian"} person for their religious beliefs should be allowed to do so--and that you are actively working to get politicians to do the same?
Do you deny that it is your RELIGIOUS intention to put the ten commandments on every courthouse lawn and return CHRISTIAN prayers to schools and that you actively support politicians who do the same?
And even if you deny some or all of these intolerant viewpoints, guess what? You are in bed with those who do. And a man is certainly seen as a part of the company he keeps.
Religious intolerance scarcely existed before the rise of monotheism. Ancient polytheistic religions worshipped numerous gods but never involved doctrinally precise professions of faith. There was no such matters as orthodoxy or heresy. The gods were mutually tolerant of one another, and the worshippers were eclectic, moving from one shrine or cult to the next without the slightest feeling of inconsistency. In Tarsus, where Paul grew up, as in all the towns of the ancient world outside of Judea, the gods were not jealous. They insisted that they must be offered punctiliously all honors due to them, but they did not worry about what honors were paid to other gods or men. Much later, Attila the Hun allowed members of his horde to follow whichever gods they wished, so long as they didn’t interfere in each other’s freedom of worship. Attila was more a model for religious tolerance than fundamentalists in any religion are today.
Busy weekend - just getting back to this...
OK - so you said something about us being more of a threat. I was expecting something like - Westboro BC has a bunch of guns and ammo in their basement. You give me abortion, same sex marriage, and displaying the Ten Commandments. You realize this affects about 5-10% of the population. You realize that what you stated virtually does not affect anyone's right to support themselves and make a living - except maybe those unborn babies whose lives are aborted.
Maybe I need to look at it this way. The important pillars of America from your standpoint are abortion, same sex marriage, and not displaying the Ten Commandments. Is that correct?
Let me hit this from two different angles... and I know that you will specify that it's the RELIGIOUS intent that's dangerous. Well not really. In this culture, it's only an opinion of the way things should be. Now if I shoot down all who do not think as I do - it's STILL not a RELIGIOUS intent issue - it's a ME not knowing how to behave issue.
The other angle... Abortion kills life. Homosexuality is a lifestyle of extinction. If everyone practiced homosexuality - we would be extinct. We are not designed to live in these ways. You don't need religion to see that.
For you to post what you did as more of a threat than ISIS is looney bin material.
OK - so you said something about us being more of a threat. I was expecting something like - Westboro BC has a bunch of guns and ammo in their basement. You give me abortion, same sex marriage, and displaying the Ten Commandments. You realize this affects about 5-10% of the population. You realize that what you stated virtually does not affect anyone's right to support themselves and make a living - except maybe those unborn babies whose lives are aborted.
Maybe I need to look at it this way. The important pillars of America from your standpoint are abortion, same sex marriage, and not displaying the Ten Commandments. Is that correct?
Let me hit this from two different angles... and I know that you will specify that it's the RELIGIOUS intent that's dangerous. Well not really. In this culture, it's only an opinion of the way things should be. Now if I shoot down all who do not think as I do - it's STILL not a RELIGIOUS intent issue - it's a ME not knowing how to behave issue.
The other angle... Abortion kills life. Homosexuality is a lifestyle of extinction. If everyone practiced homosexuality - we would be extinct. We are not designed to live in these ways. You don't need religion to see that.
For you to post what you did as more of a threat than ISIS is looney bin material.
No, it's not looney. Fundamentalists that wish to control the lives of other people are looney. And if it comes to a choice between being blown up or living free---Give me liberty or give me death.
Please do a study of how RELIGIOUS intent in this nation and others has killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. And also note that it was RELIGION that controlled information of scientific discoveries preventing people like Copernicus and Galileo from spreading FACTUAL truth as opposed to RELIGIOUS truth.
The further threat of fundamentalists in this country AGAINST freedom is the attempt to force the teaching of creationism into schools. Although evolution is a theory, there is definitely some evidence for it--hence calling it a theory. There is absolutely no evidence for creationism--it is a RELIGIOUS belief. Attempting, as fundamentalists continue to do, to put the teaching of creationism in school is putting RELIGION in schools---hence there should be room for ISIS or Buddhism or whatever other religion that has their own ideas about what to teach in school.
RELIGION is attempting to get "school vouchers" for the purpose of tax subsidy of RELIGIOUS institutions. This is a blatant attempt at a kind of theocracy---so that children will be taught the RELIGIOUS view of creationism, not the scientific theory of evolution.
At least 50% of Americans see nothing "murderous" about abortion. To impose a RELIGIOUS view on those people is wrong and is an attempt, as usual, by fundamentalists to control the lives of other people who strongly disagree with that RELIGIOUS viewpoint. Incidentally, I am personally opposed to abortion--but more opposed to saying doctors are "murderers" for providing abortion services. And the hypocrisy of fundamentalists is that I have never seen any fundamentalist calling for the imprisonment of the women who go to an abortion clinic. I guess they believe those who abort babies are forced to do so by the "bad" doctors. Hypocrisy.
Same sex marriage would allow same sex oriented individuals to be at least as committed in their relationships as heterosexual couples (about 50% committed which is still an atrocious percentage). It would treat them as human beings allowing them to visit their partner in the hospital, obtain health care as a married couple provide the same tax advantage as heterosexual marriages--in other words treat them as human beings whether or not YOU see them as sinful. I just don't get why treating them as less than human because of how they were born (and yes, scientific evidence points in that direction as well) somehow increases YOUR spirituality. By the way MORE than 50% of the people of this nation have no opposition to same sex marriage despite the lies and false information spread by fundamentalists.
Fundamentalism in America is FAR more dangerous than ISIS which remains centered in the Middle East with perhaps forays into Europe.
Unless freedom loving Americans stand against fundamentalism of EVERY religion including Christianity we are indeed endorsing the slow death of those freedoms we hold dear.
I do not doubt the sincerity of your beliefs or any other fundamentalist. And that is exactly what makes fundamentalism so very dangerous to a freedom loving society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
