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.
People in general do balk at the notion "we don't want it so you can't have it" that seems prevalent in O'Hair's movement.
I honestly don't think any Christians would care if you stated at cocktail parties that you're not a believer, or said it on websites, or developed "congregations" of non believers where you sing songs, promote moral and ethical behavior, and had pot lucks, making it obvious in your signage, mission statement and website that this group is for people who don't believe in any form of spiritual higher power. In fact, Christians would welcome that almost universally.
People do rail, though, when a minority says we don't want it so you have to stop doing it around us. For heavens sake, look at the peanut allergy thing. Look how up in arms some short-sighted people get even when they KNOW someone in the area has a deathly peanut allergy, and they get told they can't have their little package of peanuts on a plane. There is REAL push back on that, even though the people know someone could DIE from exposure, and the only thing they have to give up is a silly packet of peanuts.
That's how Christians feel, with much less need to take away our "peanuts" (which is a totally understandable prohibition around allergy sufferers). Having a Santa Claus decoration or candy canes in the Christmas Party is not going to kill any of you, and we want it. Why should we have to stop having what we want?
Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in celebrating birthdays, but you certainly don't see them screaming when kids bring cupcakes to share with the class on their birthdays, or pass out birthday party invitations, or kids get to wear a cute little crown to school on their birthdays. The class may well sing Happy Birthday to them, as well. Oh, Jason, you don't celebrate birthdays? Ok, we'll do something else special for you next month that's not birthday related.
Oh. You're vegan? Ok, don't eat the hamburger on the lunch tray - you might want to bring lunch from home.
See how easy that is?
Sometimes, it feels like Christianity is treated like pedophilia or some other vile construct. If the majority doesn't want candy canes at the school Christmas parties, that's one thing. But from what I saw, the majority DO want Candy Canes and elf pictures.
Honestly, it feels like the tyranny of the minority here.
There is a bit of a difference between an allergy or disability that means that you have real problems if your needs are not met, and just what one happens to prefer. Preferences are a different matter. The more preferences people have the more the option of stating Particular requirements before a flight cannot cope and getting your own meal in the airport and bringing it on board starts to look like the only way (aside security problems).
But the analogy can't be pushed too far - you have to have a meal at school (or send the kids home) but you do not have to spoonfeed them their religion - let alone one kind and never mind those who 'eat' a different religion.
I've put up this posts up many times...and I hope for further debate of it:
First off, I have a problem lending credence to people that were slave owners, oppressed females, and had no problem authorizing a genocide to take over more land. Those guys were a plague upon humanity no less than A. Hitler and the Nazis or G. Khan and his crew.
What is written in "the documents" is paper & ink, and what they said is just "words"---What they ACTUALLY did...is REALITY.
Oh, BUT WAIT! They were high level political officials...They would neeeeeeeever do what they said they wouldn't...or fail to do what they said they would.
Everyone knows politicians are above all that...Right?!
Especially the slave owning, female oppressing, genocidal kind...because they are such honorable guys!
HERE'S THE REAL DEAL: Those so-called "Founding Fathers" promoted their brand of religion harder than McDonalds pushes their hamburgers. They did everything they could to inculcate the people...including the few Native People they hadn't killed...REGARDLESS of what they wrote!
Not only did they TRY to instill their religion into the fabric of the new society that was being developed---they SUCCEEDED. MOF, they did it SO good...it's STILL the main game.
And anyone denying the reality because they don't like it, doesn't change it.
What it does, or doesn't, HAVE TO BE based on the law...is inconsequential to WHAT IT IS...and HAS BEEN ever since the hostile takeover by the European Christians that overthrew the Native People.
And that's another thing to get straight--They only "founded" THE GOVERNMENT...NOT "the nation". The nation was already founded...they just took it by force and deception and put their own "game" in place--And you can't "found" something by stealing it.
First, there were the Native Americans with their (IMHO, just about ideal) culture, belief, and traditions, that were the inhabitants of this land. And, in a perfected world, the ones that should still be the rightful leaders--but that's another issue.
Then there were the European so-called "Founding Fathers" that stole the land (mostly by force, partly by swindle) from the Native People and put forth their con-job of a secular society...all the while they promoted, and inculcated, their version of Christianity better than a crew of modern TV Evangelists. An all out effort to make BibleGod and BibleRules the base concept, was the prime order of business. Which figures...since they left their homeland, mainly so they could have their theological way. They were soooooo slick, they even put some shills out front, with fake non-Christian diversion-talk (even putting some of that cover-talk in their initial documents), while they ran their ACTUAL game.
Politicians still use this tried-and-true technique of feinting policy and purporting false intentions, to mitigate opposition...this "deception and diversion" is a concept which has it birth as a military/fighting tactic.
The empirical evidence of this is as visible as the sun and moon, and their efforts were so successful it still has great power and influence to this day.
What the "founding fathers" and the "founding documents" said/wrote it was/would be...I do not believe they intended/wanted it to ACTUALLY be.
Actions speak way louder than words...and what they did flies in the face of them actually WANTING this country to be non-religious.
This may not go over too well, but...I don't think those so-called "founding fathers" were any different than most high level politicians that have ever existed. They say they will/won't do one thing...but then actually do the opposite...all the while giving speeches and writing up "documents" using shill words and statements. They can't be trusted, and their main objective is their personal agenda...and you will never know what that REALLY is based on what they say or write...because they will always "spin" things to avoid opposition, or appear to be fair.
Want to know how things REALLY were/are?...just take a look back/around!
I submit...the #1 way for the government to indirectly promote the growth of ANYTHING...is to exempt it from taxes. THAT will tell you what they REALLY want to flourish.
It is KNOWN HISTORY that in the early days of the Republic, Christian church services were held in virtually every Federal building in D.C...the government, in essence, became a church! Thomas Jefferson attended services in the House of Representatives chamber. He decided the music needed more energy, so he ordered the Marine Band to play each Sunday. All paid for with govt. funds, of course.
Jefferson even sent missionaries to the Indian tribes...and provided government money to build churches...all so, according to him, the Native Americans might enjoy "more fullness of life".
Don't believe me?...do some research.
During Jeffersons term as President he started three school systems in D.C. and Virginia---The required texts for each school system were the Bible, Watt’s book of hymns, and a reading primer. Because, according to him, "Those books are the basis of a good education".
Again, do some research...you'll see.
Those guys back then took the completely NON-CHRISTIAN country they had come to (the Natives were NOT Christian)...and SATURATED it with Christianity. And they used the power and money of the government they had put together to do it.
There was NO Christianity...or ANY religion, for that matter...in this land until THEY came along...the Native People were spiritual, but they weren't religious (much, much better a "way"-IMO).
So, how did it get so prevalent and locked in? Because, regardless of what they wrote in "the documents", they pushed it like TV evangelists! Even onto the original occupants of the land they stole/swindled it from...THAT'S how.
They did such a good job at so completely turning the existing Non-Religious Nation into a Religious Nation...200 years later IT STILL IS. BECAUSE OF THEM...they "kicked it off"! How can anyone not see that?!
If it wasn't them...I'd sure like someone to give me some other good evidence as to who it really was that changed things from NonChristian to Christian in this country.
I do think some of the "concepts" and "ideals" that were written into documents like the Constitution and the DOI were/are awesome.
MOF...they are, in theory, some of the best rules of governance and regulations for societal order ever written.
My issue is with the guys that wrote them.
The evidence shows it was nothing but "political spin & posturing" on their part...as a "shield" to hide behind, while they ran their ACTUAL game.
As far as standards go...based on their ACTUAL ACTIONS & DEEDS (regardless of what they wrote)...those dudes were one of the most evil, hypocritical, heinous, cruel, selfish, rotten crew of despots to ever assemble.
They shouldn't have ever even been here in the first place! Who were they to kill and swindle their way into power?! They slaughtered nearly an ENTIRE human race! They were no better than G. Khan, A. Hitler, and their ilk...and stroking those guys is no different than stroking Khan and Hitler. Hey...at least Khan and Hitler had the stones to lay it on the line in no uncertain terms...instead of being shifty, sneaky, "wolves in sheeps' clothing".
That's how I see it...because that's how it REALLY WAS. Lofty written "concepts and ideals"...that they themselves were as far from as any that ever lived, aside.
I've put up this posts up many times...and I hope for further debate of it:
First off, I have a problem lending credence to people that were slave owners, oppressed females, and had no problem authorizing a genocide to take over more land. Those guys were a plague upon humanity no less than A. Hitler and the Nazis or G. Khan and his crew.
What is written in "the documents" is paper & ink, and what they said is just "words"---What they ACTUALLY did...is REALITY.
Oh, BUT WAIT! They were high level political officials...They would neeeeeeeever do what they said they wouldn't...or fail to do what they said they would.
Everyone knows politicians are above all that...Right?!
Especially the slave owning, female oppressing, genocidal kind...because they are such honorable guys!
HERE'S THE REAL DEAL: Those so-called "Founding Fathers" promoted their brand of religion harder than McDonalds pushes their hamburgers. They did everything they could to inculcate the people...including the few Native People they hadn't killed...REGARDLESS of what they wrote!
Not only did they TRY to instill their religion into the fabric of the new society that was being developed---they SUCCEEDED. MOF, they did it SO good...it's STILL the main game.
And anyone denying the reality because they don't like it, doesn't change it.
What it does, or doesn't, HAVE TO BE based on the law...is inconsequential to WHAT IT IS...and HAS BEEN ever since the hostile takeover by the European Christians that overthrew the Native People.
And that's another thing to get straight--They only "founded" THE GOVERNMENT...NOT "the nation". The nation was already founded...they just took it by force and deception and put their own "game" in place--And you can't "found" something by stealing it.
First, there were the Native Americans with their (IMHO, just about ideal) culture, belief, and traditions, that were the inhabitants of this land. And, in a perfected world, the ones that should still be the rightful leaders--but that's another issue.
Then there were the European so-called "Founding Fathers" that stole the land (mostly by force, partly by swindle) from the Native People and put forth their con-job of a secular society...all the while they promoted, and inculcated, their version of Christianity better than a crew of modern TV Evangelists. An all out effort to make BibleGod and BibleRules the base concept, was the prime order of business. Which figures...since they left their homeland, mainly so they could have their theological way. They were soooooo slick, they even put some shills out front, with fake non-Christian diversion-talk (even putting some of that cover-talk in their initial documents), while they ran their ACTUAL game.
Politicians still use this tried-and-true technique of feinting policy and purporting false intentions, to mitigate opposition...this "deception and diversion" is a concept which has it birth as a military/fighting tactic.
The empirical evidence of this is as visible as the sun and moon, and their efforts were so successful it still has great power and influence to this day.
What the "founding fathers" and the "founding documents" said/wrote it was/would be...I do not believe they intended/wanted it to ACTUALLY be.
Actions speak way louder than words...and what they did flies in the face of them actually WANTING this country to be non-religious.
This may not go over too well, but...I don't think those so-called "founding fathers" were any different than most high level politicians that have ever existed. They say they will/won't do one thing...but then actually do the opposite...all the while giving speeches and writing up "documents" using shill words and statements. They can't be trusted, and their main objective is their personal agenda...and you will never know what that REALLY is based on what they say or write...because they will always "spin" things to avoid opposition, or appear to be fair.
Want to know how things REALLY were/are?...just take a look back/around!
I submit...the #1 way for the government to indirectly promote the growth of ANYTHING...is to exempt it from taxes. THAT will tell you what they REALLY want to flourish.
It is KNOWN HISTORY that in the early days of the Republic, Christian church services were held in virtually every Federal building in D.C...the government, in essence, became a church! Thomas Jefferson attended services in the House of Representatives chamber. He decided the music needed more energy, so he ordered the Marine Band to play each Sunday. All paid for with govt. funds, of course.
Jefferson even sent missionaries to the Indian tribes...and provided government money to build churches...all so, according to him, the Native Americans might enjoy "more fullness of life".
Don't believe me?...do some research.
During Jeffersons term as President he started three school systems in D.C. and Virginia---The required texts for each school system were the Bible, Watt’s book of hymns, and a reading primer. Because, according to him, "Those books are the basis of a good education".
Again, do some research...you'll see.
Those guys back then took the completely NON-CHRISTIAN country they had come to (the Natives were NOT Christian)...and SATURATED it with Christianity. And they used the power and money of the government they had put together to do it.
There was NO Christianity...or ANY religion, for that matter...in this land until THEY came along...the Native People were spiritual, but they weren't religious (much, much better a "way"-IMO).
So, how did it get so prevalent and locked in? Because, regardless of what they wrote in "the documents", they pushed it like TV evangelists! Even onto the original occupants of the land they stole/swindled it from...THAT'S how.
They did such a good job at so completely turning the existing Non-Religious Nation into a Religious Nation...200 years later IT STILL IS. BECAUSE OF THEM...they "kicked it off"! How can anyone not see that?!
If it wasn't them...I'd sure like someone to give me some other good evidence as to who it really was that changed things from NonChristian to Christian in this country.
I do think some of the "concepts" and "ideals" that were written into documents like the Constitution and the DOI were/are awesome.
MOF...they are, in theory, some of the best rules of governance and regulations for societal order ever written.
My issue is with the guys that wrote them.
The evidence shows it was nothing but "political spin & posturing" on their part...as a "shield" to hide behind, while they ran their ACTUAL game.
As far as standards go...based on their ACTUAL ACTIONS & DEEDS (regardless of what they wrote)...those dudes were one of the most evil, hypocritical, heinous, cruel, selfish, rotten crew of despots to ever assemble.
They shouldn't have ever even been here in the first place! Who were they to kill and swindle their way into power?! They slaughtered nearly an ENTIRE human race! They were no better than G. Khan, A. Hitler, and their ilk...and stroking those guys is no different than stroking Khan and Hitler. Hey...at least Khan and Hitler had the stones to lay it on the line in no uncertain terms...instead of being shifty, sneaky, "wolves in sheeps' clothing".
That's how I see it...because that's how it REALLY WAS. Lofty written "concepts and ideals"...that they themselves were as far from as any that ever lived, aside.
What’s exactly the brand of religion pushed by the founding fathers, and in which ways it was different from the main stream Christianity in England (which I think was quite barbaric and brutal)?
What’s exactly the brand of religion pushed by the founding fathers, and in which ways it was different from the main stream Christianity in England (which I think was quite barbaric and brutal)?
They pushed a general Christian/Abrahamic theology.
They were no less brutal...even to the point of being genocidal despots.
They pushed a general Christian/Abrahamic theology.
They were no less brutal...even to the point of being genocidal despots.
what don't you like about them? They weren't perfect, I get that.
oopps I just saw the long post.
slave owners: they knew it was wrong. They knew that there might be a war within a hundred years to stop it. They knew that had to let that evil alone to fight the war and get the country started.
relative to all people of that time, just how much worse were they?
what don't you like about them? They weren't perfect, I get that.
oopps I just saw the long post.
slave owners: they knew it was wrong. They knew that there might be a war within a hundred years to stop it. They knew that had to let that evil alone to fight the war and get the country started.
relative to all people of that time, just how much worse were they?
Brutal world back then...and they were no different. Though many try to make them out to be something very different.
Brutal world back then...and they were no different. Though many try to make them out to be something very different.
well yeah, people make them out to be different. My fab four are Washington, linclon, Sherman and lee.
You said you don't take the word of slave owner. I think most of them knew slavery was evil and knew there might be a serous war to stop it within less than a 100 years. I think they knew we would be killing each other to stop it.
Brutal world back then...and they were no different. Though many try to make them out to be something very different.
I think we get that. The nation has to build on earlier laws and rules, sometimes Interpreting them and sometimes changing them as society changes. As I said to another poster, if you disagree with the present interpretation of the Constitution, take it up with those who interpret is, not us. So far, we (secularists) are happy with the way it is interpreted, and digging dirt on the founding fathers seems irrelevant .
I think we get that. The nation has to build on earlier laws and rules, sometimes Interpreting them and sometimes changing them as society changes. As I said to another poster, if you disagree with the present interpretation of the Constitution, take it up with those who interpret is, not us. So far, we (secularists) are happy with the way it is interpreted, and digging dirt on the founding fathers seems irrelevant .
The "dirt" on the Founding Fathers requires no "digging".
Actually, as respects Religious Indoctrination of the Society....it has been all over it, ever since they ran their game.
Their conjob writings and rules to the contrary, notwithstanding.
That is the point I try to make...when someone makes the claim they did not like religion, or wanted the Country to be secular. Their actions proved different.
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.
