Lindaland
  Global Unity
  What They Dreamed (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   What They Dreamed
Mirandee
unregistered
posted November 06, 2004 12:20 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thomas Jefferson:

"Believing 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." (This is the source of the term "wall of separation between church and state.")

James Madison: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

http://home.iprimus.com/~dpaxson/10_26_03.htm

What They Dreamed

Rev. Christina M. Neilson

October 26th, 2003

Civil Liberties Sunday


The Dream

Clustered in meeting rooms, musty with smoke and wine, in the ripe and salty air on board the ships, and on the battlefields, stained by blood and sweat, the American experiment began. A dream that we, the people of the United States, could form a more perfect union. A dream that a new day of religious tolerance would begin, and religious wars would stop. A dream that freedom was accessible to all, and that we could assemble, speak, write, and practice the faith of our choosing.

We dreamed of a country that was independent, but also free from future tyrannies. The central aim in the creation of the constitution was to prevent power from encroaching upon liberty. Our leaders understood abuse of power.

In the Declaration of Independence, they write, “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”[1]

Our leaders understood historical patterns of conflicts between governments and organized religion, and this understanding inspired their decision to separate church and state.

From the crusades to terrorist attacks, one does not need to look far to see evidence of this. Separating church and state was a way of managing the competition for power and control between government and religion. Those who dared to dream of democracy set a high standard. It took a long time to be realized in practice, and is a difficult dream to maintain.

The Dreamers

Who were the early dreamers who shaped the very foundation of our country? Many of them are part of our faith tradition. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, who were Unitarians and lawyers, signed the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Rush, also a signer, was a Universalist doctor. Charged with the task of drafting the document, Thomas Jefferson enlisted the aid of the other men, and the dream took form.

Our constitution reflects the dream inspired by these men. The first amendment to ensure that the government would not favor any one particular religion. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or of prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” [2] They hoped to create a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. They wanted to create a wall of separation between church and state.”

The first clause, known as the “establishment clause”, clearly states, ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This was intended to guarantee a society free from laws which are religiously bound. The government should be neutral in writing laws.

The second clause, called the “Full exercise clause”, states, “or of prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is meant to guarantee a free religious society and a free conscience. No religions should be established by the government.

In his own words, Jefferson says: “Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society… [ I ] Believe 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 legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,”[3]

He was not saying that people should be let off the hook because of their personal beliefs. If their actions lead to criminal activities, the law would still punish their deeds. He says, “The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.”[4]

The Supreme Court has three proofs to determine if a particular law that is to be passed is consistent with the establishment clause.

1. The law must have a secular purpose

2. It’s purpose must not be intended to prohibit or promote religion,

3. It should not cause the government to become entangled with religion.


Keep these three proofs in mind as we review some of the current threats to our civil liberties. Are they really threats? Or are we/am I paranoid? We need to respect all of our civil rights, as they are interdependent upon each other. Without free speech, we do not have free religion, without free press we do not have free elections. Separation of church and state is an essential component of these interdependencies.

Those who oppose this separation heighten confusion of the issue. They say that it doesn’t exist in reality. They say that the words, “Separation of church and state” are not part of the constitution. They say that it is not possible to separate our faith and morals from our actions. Because of this, it would be inevitable for our elected officials, the moral leaders of our country; to support efforts like faith based initiatives, charitable choice, and moral teachings and practices in our schools.

Is this so bad? Isn’t it better that we get the services that we need and not be concerned about religious bias?

Challenges to the Dream

Take for example, some of the issues that faith based initiatives have supported. They give drug and alcohol rehabilitation to addicts, provide counseling to battered families, pay for sexual education for teens, anti-drug programs on college campuses, and find jobs for the jobless. What’s wrong with that?

A deeper exploration shows that the faith based drug rehab program is court ordered. (Or they are given the option to serve time) In Texas, Alcohol and drug addiction is treated like a sin instead of a disease.[5] The treatment is morally based, rather than medically/ counseling based.

The treatment given to abused families are to ensure that the families stay together, not to ensure the safety and separation of the abuser and the abused.

Women’s health choices are blocked. Birth control teaching in faith-based hospitals to women who are new mothers is restricted, in particular information on vasectomies, tubaligations and abortions, unless the husband is present, even if the woman was raped, even if the pregnancy was unintended, even if the information was specifically requested.

Sex education for teens is “abstinence based”, an unrealistic tactic for an already pregnant teen or sexually active person. The education is family planning oriented, rather than comprehensive training. There is no discussion of relationships, gay/lesbian/gender issues, sexual or domestic abuse, or assertiveness training/negotiating skills.

Anti-drug programs on campus are a thinly disguised proselytizing opportunity aimed at young adults. Little information is relayed past “Just say no.”

In Louisiana, 1.6 million tax dollars are spent annually to fund Christ centered religious skits, religious youth revivals, biblical instruction on purity and organizing prayer vigils at abortion clinics. The ACLU is suing them.[6]

In Little Rock, AZ, the Department of Human Resources funded a “jobless for Christ” campaign. Efforts are billed as interfaith “neighbors helping neighbors” opportunity, but in reality only 8% of churches participate in interfaith activities. Would Wicca qualify for those funds too?[7]

Clark Moeller, in his essay, Church-State Separation: A Keystone to Peace, says, “Charitable choice efforts are not a vehicle for the faith community at large, but for fringe religious providers avoiding legitimate state oversight and regulation. They are faith-based deregulation,”[8] with no accountable standards or oversight.

How are we doing on our “Proofs”?

1. The law must have a secular purpose

2. It’s purpose must not be intended to prohibit or promote religion,

3. It should not cause the government to become entangled with religion.


It seems to me to be a clear cut exploitation of our tax dollars beyond it’s intended purpose. It would take a dramatic shift for religions to provide services without strings attached. There are no clear guidelines for grant money. If my tax money is supporting treatment, I want it to be monitored as any other medical treatment, and for institutions to be held accountable.


Let’s look at another issue. We’ve been under repeated pressure to use school vouchers to fund private schools. The rational is that parents are entitled to a better choice for their children. The reality is, the parents don’t get to choose, the administrators choose who gets in based on his/her religious bias. I’m not criticizing private schools, there are many quality schools, I’m just saying it’s not possible to keep state money separate from religious bias. If public money is used to support private schools, then the school needs to be accountable to the public, not just to the families who voluntarily send their children to the school.

People who advocate for school prayer say that denying the opportunity for prayer in school it inhibits their civil liberty. People are always free to practice on their own. They could pray during lunch or study hall, or really wherever they want. But to institutionalize the practice is to fail to keep church and state separate. If we teach creationism or “Intelligent design” in the classroom, or block the teaching of evolution, or ask kids to recite the pledge of allegiance saying, “under God”, we fail to keep church and state separate. If we place the Ten Commandments in the public classrooms and courtrooms, we fail to keep church and state separate.

I support the existence of private schools, but if tax dollars are being used to support private institutions, they need to be accountable to the taxpayers. It’s not acceptable to me to have deregulated, tax supported schools, at the expense of the public schools. Few private schools are equipped to administer a regulated program. If the government regulates standards, there is no separation of church and state.

How did we do now?

1.The law must have a secular purpose (Education)

2.It’s purpose must not be intended to prohibit or promote religion, (no)

3. It should not cause the government to become entangled with religion. (It will if the public demands accountability.)

If we are to be free religiously, we will be free of government interference in our religious institutions. Atheists would not be harassed, and witches would not be put on trial. We would be free to practice religious dietary laws, and wear religious garments. Gay rights would not be denied based on religious connotations. Discrimination based on religious affiliation would not be allowed.

This is only scratching the surface on many issues that violate the separation of church and state, and the erosion of our civil liberties. Religious liberty is only one of the civil liberties being challenged. We didn’t even get past the first amendment today. The Patriot Act I, II, & III violate several of the constitutional amendments. We’ll have time following the service today to further discuss threats to our civil liberties, and to learn more information in our teach-in. Churches tend to lack formal support for separation of church and state issues. They are sometimes difficult to feel involved in first hand. Keith has brochures to distribute, and we will meet in the sanctuary following coffee for further discussion.

Defending our civil liberties is not easy, but church state separation has the best record of maintaining peace among people of different faiths. It has the best record for avoiding war, famine and achieving economic prosperity. It has the best record for protecting religious liberty, and preventing a theocracy.

Civil rights abuses change behavior. If we trust the government to uphold our rights, and that trust is violated, we vote with our money. When we show trust in our government, the GNP goes up. When we see corruption, the GNP goes down.[9] We spend less and the economy fails. We fear protest and black lists. We stay safely in silence, rather than risk abuse.

The erosion of our civil liberties destroys our strongest weapon for fighting a dictatorship. Our democracy is at stake. When civil rights are protected, countries negotiate rather than fight. An attitude of tolerance enables us to reach a compromise.

Creating our dream

Our ancestors had a dream of a free religious society. Has our dream changed today? Have we learned something over the past couple hundred years that makes us desire a change in the constitution? There were seven churches recognized back in 1776. Today there are over 2,000! Almost 500 new religions in the past century alone! Can the same constitution protect the rights of all?

Our ancestors knew the dangers of theocracy. They were intentional in creating a constitution that would prevent religious abuse of power, and government abuse of religion. Before we allow our constitution to be slowly eroded, we should carefully evaluate laws to ensure that they meet the protections set in place.

The dream of a great democracy can be realized. It is our dream now to own. May we never take for granted, the freedoms that we so carefully created and fought for. May we remember the wisdom and vision of our ancestors. May what they dreamed be ours to do.
http://padnet.org/CSS2/CSS2Intro.html

Church-State Separation:
A Keystone to Peace (3rd edition)
Clark Moeller, January 2004 --
[Copyright 2004, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy -- Printing, copying and distribution is encouraged with full attribution.]

Years ago I read Margaret Atwood's book "The Handmaid's Tale." I thought it a good fictional story but dismissed the idea that it could ever happen in America because of our Constitution. Recently I have been thinking of that book a lot more and realizing how very prophetic that book was.

Essay on Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale
http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/handmaid/essays/essay1.html

IP: Logged

KarenSD
unregistered
posted November 07, 2004 12:35 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nice post, Mirandee.

Oh to have more Thomas Jeffersons around nowadays...

IP: Logged

Azalaksh
Knowflake

Posts: 982
From: New Brighton, MN, USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 21, 2007 07:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Azalaksh     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Was looking for something else and ran across this -- thought it deserved a

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 22, 2007 12:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No one has attempted to establish a theoracy in America Mirandee.

You attempted this same ruse a while back and I called you on it then.

The Constitution prohibits the Congress of the United States from enacting legislation establishing a state..government sponsored religion.

It does not prohibit or restrict prayer by government officials, in the Congress, in the White House or any place else. It does not and cannot restrict or prohibit federal money from going to religious groups who are performing social services for the needy so long as all such groups are treated equally.

There are some people who need to just get the hell over it. America is and always has been a Christian nation. A Christian nation which does not interfere in the religious practices of other religions nor attempt to stiffle their religious beliefs nor force Christianity or Christian beliefs on any person.

Now Mirandee, I asked you before to name the religious group and the religious leaders by name and demonation who have or are attempting to establish a religious theoracy in America.

Last time I challenged you to do so, you went totally silent on this subject..only to ressurect the issue in yet another misleading thread.

If there are such religious leaders and groups, you should be able to find and document their efforts...by linking to their articles and mission statements...instead of posting the non specific whine of leftist so called religious leaders and writers.

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 22, 2007 01:44 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
America is and always has been a Christian nation. A Christian nation which does not interfere in the religious practices of other religions nor attempt to stiffle their religious beliefs nor force Christianity or Christian beliefs on any person.

Really? Why don't you talk to the Native Americans whose religious rights were restored only in 1974, to let them worship in the way that they had for centuries? Why don't you talk to the countless Rastifarians who are unable to worship openly, in this country, in the way that they choose without fear of inprisonment, confiscation of their property, and their children, if they have them forcebly taken away and put into the foster care system, by the government? These are only 2 examples.

Many of the founders were Unitarian Universalists.

Who were some famous
Unitarian Universalists?
In American politics:
bullet Abigail Adams*
bullet John Adams*
bullet John Quincy Adams
bullet Ethan Allen
bullet Chester Bliss Bowles
bullet Harold Hitz Burton
bullet John C. Calhoun
bullet Joseph S. Clark
bullet William S. Cohen
bullet Paul H. Douglas
bullet Emily Taft Douglas
bullet Thomas H. Eliot
bullet Edward Everett
bullet Millard Fillmore*
bullet Benjamin Franklin*
bullet Horace Greeley*
bullet Hannibal Hamlin
bullet Thomas Jefferson*
bullet Edward S. Mason
bullet Wade McCree
bullet Maurine Neuberger
bullet Lucius Paige (1802-1896)
bullet Thomas Paine
bullet William J. Perry
bullet Paul Revere*
bullet Josiah Quincy (1722-1864)
bullet Elliot L. Richardson
bullet Leverett Saltonstall
bullet Francis George Shaw
bullet Col. Robert Gould Shaw
bullet Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)*
bullet William Howard Taft*
bullet Daniel Webster*

The Principles and purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association

"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote"

* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

"The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:"

* Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
* Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
* Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
* Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
* Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.
* Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

"Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision. As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising to one another our mutual trust and support."

It spite of Christian right attempts to rewrite history to make Jefferson into a Christian, little about his philosophy resembles that of Christianity. Although Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, there exists nothing in the Declaration about Christianity.

Although Jefferson believed in a Creator, his concept of it resembled that of the god of deism (the term "Nature's God" used by deists of the time). With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible) leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.

Distortions of history occur in the minds of many Christians whenever they see the word "God" embossed in statue or memorial concrete. For example, those who visit the Jefferson Memorial in Washington will read Jefferson's words engraved: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." When they see the word "God" many Christians see this as "proof" of his Christianity without thinking that "God" can have many definitions ranging from nature to supernatural. Yet how many of them realize that this passage aimed at attacking the tyranny of the Christian clergy of Philadelphia, or that Jefferson's God was not the personal god of Christianity? Those memorial words came from a letter written to Benjamin Rush in 1800 in response to Rush's warning about the Philadelphia clergy attacking Jefferson (Jefferson was seen as an infidel by his enemies during his election for President). The complete statement reads as follows:

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny. He thought that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

If anything can clear of the misconceptions of Jeffersonian history, it can come best from the author himself. Although Jefferson had a complex view of religion, too vast for this presentation, the following quotes provide a glimpse of how Thomas Jefferson viewed the corruptions of Christianity and religion.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

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

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

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

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

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

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)


Here's someone who has an agenda, at Jerry Fallwell's memorial service:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070520/REPOSITOR Y/705200388/1311/48HOURS

Gingrich: Fight 'radical secularism'
At Liberty graduation, a tribute to Falwell

printicon Print article
mailicon Send to friend
Letter to the editor Letter to editor

By BOB LEWIS
The Associated Press
May 20. 2007 10:00AM

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told Liberty University's graduating class yesterday to honor the spirit of school founder Jerry Falwell by confronting "the growing culture of radical secularism" with Christian ideals.

Gingrich, who is considering a 2008 presidential run, quoted Bible passages to a mournful crowd of about 17,000 packed into the university's football stadium in Lynchburg, Va., four days after Falwell's death.

Despite the somber tone of the day, graduates who covered the football field chanted "Jerry! Jerry!" in tribute to Falwell.

"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded," Gingrich said. "We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms," he said.

Liberty's commencement has become a forum for conservative politicians. Last year's address came from Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who made amends with Falwell after attacking him by name during McCain's failed 2000 White House bid.

Gingrich said he won't decide until October whether to run for president.

It was the first commencement without Falwell, the Baptist preacher who established the church-based university in 1971, before he founded the Moral Majority that helped elect Ronald Reagan president in 1980.

On Tuesday morning, the 73-year-old Falwell was discovered without a pulse in his office at Liberty and pronounced dead at a hospital about an hour later. His physician said Falwell had a heart condition and presumably died of a heart rhythm abnormality.

His funeral was set for Tuesday.

His son, Jerry Falwell Jr., addressed Liberty's students as the school's new chancellor.

Gingrich said after his speech that Falwell's death would not slow the Christian right's efforts.

"Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," Gingrich said.

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

goatgirl
unregistered
posted May 22, 2007 11:26 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians
by Steven Morris, in Free Inquiry, Fall, 1995

"The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have 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."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1790.

Speaking of the independence of the first 13 States, H.G. Wells in his Outline of History, says:

"It was a Western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; and it had not a vestige of monarchy left, and no State Religion... The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but, as a State document of 1796 expicity declared: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.'"

The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

------------------
After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 23, 2007 03:25 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LOL Zala, when I saw the date on this my first thought was " have I been here this long?"

Good articles, GG. They more than cover Jwhop's questions so for me to add to that would be redundant.

It's an error to say that America is a Christian Nation and always was. It would be more accurate to say that America is predominantly a Christian nation if you look at the breakdown of the top 20 religions in the U.S. Though the stats don't reflect that there are many different types of Christian churches as compared to other beliefs.

However, if you also look at the stats regarding those religions in the U.S. you will find that in the past 10 years Christianity has only increased by 5% while Secularism and other religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and New Age have made drastic increases percentage wise. If the past decade is any indication we can truthfully say that America is becoming less and less a predominantly Christian nation.

Being a Christian myself I blame that on the Religious Right. If I didn't know better and know that they do not in any way represent what Christianity is truly all about it would turn me off to Christianity too. As Gandhi so accurately put it, " The only problem with Christianity is the Christians."

Jwhop ,you stated that in no way has the Religious Right tried to force their Christian beliefs on other people.

What do you call it when they have waged an all out war against homosexuality if that is not forcing their beliefs on others? Even many Christian Churches and Christians themselves see their persecution of homosexuals as disgusting.

What do you call it when they are trying to force prayer in public schools where there are children of all different religions attending if it is not trying to force their beliefs on others? What do you call it when they openly state that they are fighting to have the Constitution changed and the article that provides for separation of church and state removed?

What do call their interference in government matters in general if not an attempt on their part to create a theocratical government in the U.S. with their brand of religion as the church state? They are buying votes in order to do that with monetary donations to candidates who vote in favor of things they want passed. Falwell, Robinson and Dobson have even alienated many evangelitical churches due to their forcefulness.

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 23, 2007 06:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've been thinking on religion and state problems for a while. I agree that religious institutions/movements should not hold sway over our government and that no one religion should be "favored" over others.

But I'm not comfortable with the idea of banning anything remotely religious from government properties, stores and the general public.

If Jewish kids and Christians kids and Wiccan kids all go to a public school together should they all be afraid of being openly religious? That's not tolerance, imo. I don't think banning all religious symbols and disallowing all prayer is tolerant in the least.


That attitude actually does favor another kind of "religious" attitude, agnosticism and/or atheism.


Teaching kids that we should tolerate all religions by banning all religions is counterproductive, imo.


I realize no country is perfect. I realize that there are corrupt people who will use the excuse of {blank} holiday to try and preach to others. I understand that certain restrictions have to be enforced so that extremists don't antagonize innocent people.


I just don't see that the only possible way we can try to achieve peace and tolerance between different religious groups is by pretending, in public, that no one is religious or that religious expression is something to look down upon or be penalized for.


The day that our country (as regarding this topic but it can apply worldwide) can willingly and publicly host celebrations (large or small) for all religious holidays, without ignorance, is the day I'll think we'll have actually moved towards religious tolerance.


Schools are a particularly tough matter and I frankly could not have a much worse view of public schooling in the US at this point. I'm not saying other countries' schools are better or worse, just that there is room for much needed improvements in the US public school system, imo.

IP: Logged

Isis
Newflake

Posts: 1
From: Brisbane, Australia
Registered: May 2009

posted May 23, 2007 01:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Eleanore

Well said!

IP: Logged

naiad
unregistered
posted May 23, 2007 06:15 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
it is too simple to say that banning all religion is wrong, because the problem is more about protecting minority religions from the wrath of the majority. religion is a volatile topic in the adult world, and it filters into kids' worlds as well. the wiccan who wishes to honor nature will find himself the object of violence from fundamentalists of most monotheistic religions, as one of infinite examples of such complexity.

even our leaders, state senators, do not know how to operate within an atmosphere of religious tolerance ~

Sen. Patrick walks out on religious tolerance
By Brenda Tso

The sky is falling on the Texas Legislature.

On Wednesday, the Texas Senate came into session with an Islamic prayer. Imam Yusuf Kavacki offered blessings from the Koran on the Senate floor. Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, became so irate that he walked out.

Sen. Kay Shapiro, R-Plano, the state's senior Jewish Senator, had granted the prayer request from the Freedom and Justice Foundation.

In a press release, Sen. Shapiro stated that "Our country prides itself on freedoms, the most relevant today is freedom of religion. In our blessed country, everyone is free to pray according to their religion, and allowing a Muslim to express his freedom demonstrates what we all have in common in the United States."

The Christian majority is now crying discrimination. On the floor, Sen. Patrick stated, "we are a state of nation with freedom of religion under which we are entitled to pray and that is remarkable. But in many parts of the world, Jews and Christians would not be given that same right."

He added, "We are a nation that allows a Muslim to come in with a Koran but does not allow a Christian to take a Bible to school ... We are a Judeo-Christian nation, primarily a Christian nation."

Basically, the senator left the floor because he is proud to be a Christian. He reasoned that since Christian prayers would not be heard in other countries, he should not have to listen to a Muslim prayer in the United States.

Never mind that two wrongs don't make a right. Never mind that doing as he did makes us exactly like those nations he vilifies. Never mind that the Senate opens with a Christian prayer just about every single day, during which senators of other religions have sat patiently and respectfully.

Granted, the majority of people in the U.S. are Christian, but ours is a nation founded upon majority rule and minority voice. Everyone has an equal right to be heard and to practice as they wish. Americans have a basic respect for every voice and every religion.

Sen. Patrick is wrong in stating that Christians are persecuted. The Constitution, both nationally and in Texas, is there to prevent a single religion from overshadowing, dominating and silencing. A Christian child can bring a Bible into school, and a Muslim child can also bring a Koran. Limiting prayer in school is not about attacking the Christian majority, it is about protecting those who are different and in the minority.

The United States was founded on right to differ. How can prayer be lead when we are not all the same, do not pray to the same god and do not pray for the same things? Protestant majorities currently arguing for prayer in schools would be furious if a Catholic prayer was imposed. Things look different from a minority standpoint.

Sen. Patrick has no right to infer that a Christian American is more American than a Jewish- American, a Muslim-American, a Buddhist-American or even an atheist American. That is like assuming blonde Americans are more American than redheaded Americans, simply because more of them exist.

I would have thought that having a minority-religion-led prayer in the Senate would open people's minds. I would have imagined that it would remind us all that we have all been a minority at one point or another. Immigrating Irish ancestors were ridiculed; so were Italians. Upon founding this country, Christians of particular denominations sought religious freedom from other Christian denominations.

I find that people like Sen. Patrick still refuse to see the big picture. Religion in America is about being open-minded and tolerant, because majorities can change. Majorities can become minorities, and the only way to ensure freedom is to extend it to others.

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/04/06/Opinion/Sen-Patrick.Walks.Out.On.Religious.Tolerance-2827709.shtml

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 24, 2007 02:10 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It would take the better part of a school day to recite prayers from all those religions that you named in your post, Eleanore and the many more religions that comprise America.

In order for there to be not just one religion represented they would have to include a prayer that represented each religion. Otherwise, if there is only one prayer recited in public school from which religion is that prayer going to come from? And why should kids of others faiths be forced to recite a prayer from a religion that is not of their own faith?

Religions do not all recite the same prayers or even use the same prayer forms. Even within the Christian religion itself the only thing that they really have in common is that they all believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus. Even those teachings are interpreted differently in the various Christian churches. Christians do not follow the same doctrines nor do they recite the same prayers.

The Lord's prayer, which is a Christian prayer is not even recited the same by Protestants and Catholics. The wording is different.

So my question is which religion's prayers are going to be used in public schools without it being biased in favor of one religion?

I probably would not see it as a violation of Church and State to have a moment of silent prayer in public schools. Then Protestant kids can silently say one of their prayers, Catholic kids could do the same, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish kids could meditate or silently recite a mantra or whatever. Since silent prayer is the best form of prayer anyway and every religion would be represented it would not violate any Constitutional law or offend any religion. The atheist and agnostic kids can think about other things. That way it would still be taking a moment to give reverance to God, or Buddha or Mohammed and everyone would be happy. Except for Pat Robinson and Dobson who want it all done their way because theirs is the only truth.

That is neither agnostic or atheistic in thinking. Excuse me, *raises hand* professed Christian here talking. It's called being sensitive to the fact that America is a melting pot with various nationalities, races and religious beliefs and practices and no one religion should ever dominate over any other. That IS tolerance of all religions.

To do any less than be sensitive of the religious beliefs of others is what amounts to intolerance. Which is why we have the Constitutional amendment that protects the freedom of religion. It's not freedom when Catholic, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, New Age, Jewish, agnostic and atheist children are forced to recite Protestant evangelitical prayers.

When I was a kid we had prayer in school depending on who the teacher was. We always recited the Lord's Prayer out loud. The Protestant version of the prayer that is, and all the Catholic kids were going, HUH? That's not the way we say it.

Besides all that, it's my suspicion that prayer in school laws are only meant to get their foot in the door. The next thing we will have is religion taught in school and that would be religious intolerance when you consider all the different teachings in just the Christian religions alone, much less all the non-Christian religions. Talk about completely confusing and screwing with the minds of kids!

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 24, 2007 02:31 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah, naiad, and there you have it. It's fine when it is their prayers being said but not fine if once in a while a Muslim prayer or any other religion is represented.

We see what would happen in the article that you presented here, naiad. Thank you for posting that. That is precisely how it would be if prayer in the public schools were allowed. The prayers of one religion only.

Public schools are federally funded institutions using the tax money of all American citizens regardless of their religious beliefs. Leave the prayers and religious education of children where it belongs, in the hands of the parents and the religions that they follow. It's worked okay for this country so far.

Sen. Patrick is not so much a proud Christian as he is an intolerant one.

quote:
Limiting prayer in school is not about attacking the Christian majority, it is about protecting those who are different and in the minority.

And that is precisely what the Consitutional amendment providing for freedom of religion and separation of church is intended for, to protect those who are different and in the minority.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 24, 2007 11:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Once again Mirandee!!

By individual name and name of demonation, name those religious leaders and their religious demonations who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution and establish a theoracy in the United States.

Links to their articles and mission statements would help you establish some credibility for your outrageous statements and those of the writers you choose to pass off as experts.

So, the US is not a Christian nation and never was...eh?

National days of prayer from the beginning.

Religious services held in the chamber of the House of Representatives and attented every Sunday by Thomas Jefferson all through his 8 years as President.

Other federal buildings turned over for prayer meetings, church services and other religious functions by Jefferson and other Presidents from the beginning.

Sessions of Congress beginning with a prayer...still today.

The very wording of the Declaration of Independence.

You've answered no questions and made no points.

My point was that all religions are given equal standing as well as their adherents before the laws of the United States...just as it was intended to be....and contrary to the constant braying of horses as$es of the so called religious left which would include Jim Wallis and the other Marxists from the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches and the heads of some so called Christian demonations.

They are losing both individual churches and individual members at a rate they cannot sustain for failing in their true mission or at least the biblical mission of the Christian churches as spelled out in the Christian Bible.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of Religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...

Simple and all encompassing...for those who can actually read.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 24, 2007 04:22 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwhop, The Religious Right, the late but not so great Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson and Charles Dobson have already been named by me in my posts. Aren't you paying attention?

quote:
Once again Mirandee!!
By individual name and name of demonation, name those religious leaders and their religious demonations who are attempting to subvert the US Constitution and establish a theoracy in the United States.

Links to their articles and mission statements would help you establish some credibility for your outrageous statements and those of the writers you choose to pass off as experts.


Once again, Jwhop!!

I 'll tell you to put a sock in it.

Maybe you have all the time in world to be on the internet compiling evidence for someone who you know will come back and say it is all liberal lies and dispute all the sources but I don't have that kind of time to waste in spinning my wheels for no useful purpose. You aren't deaf, dumb and blind, Jwhop. You know precisely who I am referring to so what's the point?

I am not going to sit here and argue with you over this either, Jwhop. That too is a waste of my time. I gave my opinions and thoughts in the discussion. You gave yours. Fine.

Incidently, Jim Wallis is an Episcopalian minister. He is not a Marxist simply because he does not agree nor follow the same religious views of you and the religious right. Where is your religious tolerance seen in accusing those of others religions who do not follow the same beliefs and faith that you do as being Maxists and communists? Where is your belief that all religions are given equal standing in those remarks about Jim Wallis?

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 24, 2007 06:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Instead of posting a lot of useless articles here that I know Jwhop will only denounce as being leftist and therefore unacceptabe, I am posting the words of the man who Jwhop, repeating the mantra of Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell who said it first,stated here was a marxist and communist along with the National Council of Churches and let you all decide for yourselves if the words of this man reflect someone who is a good man with good intentions or who Jwhop and the Religious Right would like us to believe he is.

I will say this. The fact that other Christians such as Jim Wallis have joined together with others of all religious denominations, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. to speak out against the agendas of the Religious Right and the Bush administration, along with many lay people from all faiths should be enough evidence to support that they feel that their religions are threatened by the forceful Religious Right and that they too feel that there is an attempt by this movement to create a theocracy in America and establish themselves as the church state. The only time throughout history that some religions have come out publically to oppose another religion's agenda is when thier own beliefs and religions have been threatened. That is all the proof we need to know precisely what is going on in this country.

Here are the words of Jim Wallis. Draw your own conclusions about the man from his words.

What's Acceptable? What's Possible?

This column is adapted from a commencement address that Jim Wallis delivered at Georgetown University on Sunday, May 20.

Each new generation has a chance to alter two very basic definitions of reality in our world - what is acceptable and what is possible.

First, what is acceptable?

There are always great inhumanities that we inflict upon one another in this world, great injustices that cry out to God for redress, and great gaps in our moral recognition of them. When the really big offenses are finally corrected, finally changed, it is always and only because something has happened to change our perception of the moral issues at stake. The moral contradiction we have long lived with is no longer acceptable to us. What we accepted, or ignored, or denied, finally gets our attention and we decide that we just cannot, and will not, live with it any longer. But until that happens, the injustice and misery continue.

It often takes a new generation to make that decision - that something that people have long tolerated just won't be tolerated any more.

So the question to you as graduates, as ambassadors for a new generation, is this: what are you going to no longer accept in our world, what will you refuse to tolerate now that you will be making the decisions that matter?

Will it be acceptable to you that 3 billion people in our world today - half of God's children - live on less that $2 per day, that more than 1 billion live on less than $1 per day, that the gap between the life expectancy in the rich places and the poor places in the world is now 40 years, and that 30,000 children globally will die today - on the day of your graduation - from needless, senseless, and utterly preventable poverty and disease? It's what Bono calls "stupid poverty."

Many people don't really know that, or sort of do but have never really focused on the reality or given it a second thought. And that's the way it usually is. We don't know, or we have the easy explanations about why poverty or some other calamity exists and why it can't really be changed - all of which makes us feel better about ourselves - or we are just more concerned with lots of other things. We really don't have to care. So we tolerate it and keep looking the other way.

But then something changes. Something gets our attention, something goes deeper than it has before and hooks us in the places we call the heart, the soul, the spirit. And once we've crossed over into really seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting the injustice, we can never really look back again. It is now unacceptable to us.

What we see now offends us, offends our understanding of the sanctity and dignity of life, offends our notions of fairness and justice, offends our most basic values; it violates our idea of the common good, and starts to tug at our deepest places. We cross the line of unacceptability. We become intolerant of the injustice.

But just changing our notion of what is unacceptable isn't enough, however. We must also change our perception of what is possible.

In that regard, I would encourage each of you to think about your vocation more than just your career. And there is a difference. From the outside, those two tracks may look very much alike, but asking the vocational question rather than just considering the career options will take you much deeper. The key is to ask why you might take one path instead of another - the real reasons you would do something, more than just because you can. The key is to ask who you really are and what you want to become. It is to ask what you believe you are supposed to do.

You do have great potential, but that potential will be most fulfilled if you follow the leanings of conscience and the language of the heart more than just the dictates of the market, whether economic or political. They want smart people like you to just manage the systems of the world. But rather than managing or merely fitting into systems, ask how you can change them. You're both smart enough and talented enough to do that. That's your greatest potential.

Ask where your gifts intersect with the groaning needs of the world - there is your vocation.

The antidote to cynicism is not optimism but action. And action is finally born out of hope. Try to remember that. At college, you often believe you can think your way into a new way of living, but that's actually not the way it works. Out in the world, it's more likely that you will live your way into a new way of thinking.

The key is to believe that the world can be changed, because it is only that belief that ever changes the world. And if not us, who will believe? If not you, who?

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 24, 2007 06:12 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What other Christians outside of the Religious Right are saying. This article is from Sojourners, a Christian religious magazine established by Jim Wallis and run by clergy and representatives of all religious beliefs and denominations. Their organization also includes professed atheists and agnostics.

Diana Butler Bass: American Muslims and Religious Freedom
Driving around yesterday afternoon, I was flipping between the news on two radio stations – a local talk station and BBC World Radio. During the same hour, both stations covered the same story about Islam: the findings of the first-ever nationwide survey of American Muslims, a study conducted by The Pew Research Center.

The commercial station led with the finding that one in four younger American Muslims support – under some circumstances – the practice of suicide bombing in defense of Islam. The BBC report highlighted the fact that American Muslims are far more middle class and assimilated to mainstream culture than European Muslims. The two stations, one sensationalistic and the other measured, seemed as if they were reporting on entirely different research! I went home and downloaded the whole study to check it out for myself.

Needless to say, the commercial station lifted the edgiest finding – one tempered by the fact that Muslim Americans reject religious terrorism by a much larger margin than do Muslims in other western countries. Older American Muslims almost completely reject Islamic terrorism, and half are “very concerned” about Islamic extremism throughout the world. And 53 percent also say that since Sept. 11 it has become “harder” to be a Muslim in the U.S.

The BBC got the big story right. According to the survey, American Muslims are happy, politically and socially moderate, and middle class. The data counters conventional wisdom. U.S. Muslims are better educated, have higher incomes, and express a higher degree of life satisfaction than European Muslims. Fifty-three percent think of themselves as “American” first and “Muslim” second. They believe the American dream: 71 percent agree that people who work hard can get ahead. Almost two-thirds said that “life is better” for Muslim women in America than in Muslim countries.

Muslim satisfaction with American life is a pleasant surprise; a result that should cause all Americans to consider how well immigration can work. However interesting that data may be, the story behind the story – that of the contrasts between U.S. and European Muslims – strikes me as more provocative. In Britain, France, Germany, and Spain, Muslims are much poorer than other citizens. Eighty-one percent of British Muslims consider themselves “Muslim” first and “British” second. French, German, and Spanish Muslims express little concern over Islamic extremism. Of all western Muslims, those living in Germany and Spain expressed greatest life dissatisfaction. Germany and Spain were, of course, places where the Sept. 11 terrorists had cells and financial support.

The primary historical difference regarding religion between the United States and these western European nations is the separation of church and state. Britain, France, Germany, and Spain have long – and often violent – histories of church-state establishments, often having made Christianity (or some form of Christianity) their official religion. In some cases, religious toleration was forced (either slowly or violently) upon European governments, not developing as a natural part of the society’s internal sense of identity. As recently as 2000, during the writing of the European Union Constitution, many Europeans still argued that Europe was “Christian,” and that religious identity should be part of the Union’s legal apparatus.

In the United States, Christianity was the religion of vast numbers of early settlers and political leaders. But it was never of a singular form, allowing for religious diversity since the nation’s founding (and, please, remember the native religions that inhabited this land). Diversity made it impossible for one church to gain hegemony over politics thus necessitating the establishment clause and guarantees for religious freedom. Eventually, the experience of religious diversity, a desire for toleration, and the prohibition of establishment led to the contemporary doctrine of the separation of church and state. At its best, America has a heritage of Christian liberality, intellectually influenced by Christianity but open to a wide range of ideas and peoples through the practice of religious toleration. Religious freedom is the great American contribution to classical liberalism and the foundation of contemporary liberal movements.

With its contrast between the U.S. and Europe, the Pew study suggests that the separation of church and state works to create a more generous, open, and safer society in regard to terrorism. In his recent book, Freedom’s Power: The True Force of Liberalism, Paul Starr argues:

[T]he guarantees of religious toleration and freedom of conscience exemplify the logic of liberalism as a foundation for a stable policy. Internecine religious conflicts and wars of religion, like revenge feuds, deplete the powers of states and societies. Religious toleration serves not only to allow people to worship differently but also to reduce conflict, facilitate economic exchange, and create a wider pool of talent for productive work and the state itself (p. 22).
Since Sept. 11, some Christians have called for an end to the separation of church and state to combat terrorism, claiming a stronger national Christian identity, a “Christian America,” is the way to defeat Islamic extremism – a tactic employed by some reactionary European political parties. The Pew study shows that approach is wrong-headed. The path to peace between Christians and Muslims is that of religious freedom, separation of church and state, and appreciative toleration in the best traditions of liberality.


Diana Butler Bass (www.dianabutlerbass.com) is the author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith (Harper San Francisco), an award-winning study of mainline Protestant spirituality and congregational life.

I posted these articles because it is more important to hear and know what other religions and other Christians are saying regarding the separation of church and state and how they think as opposed to what the Religious Right are publically saying than to hear it from any other source.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 24, 2007 09:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There are two ways that religion is brought into public life in American history. The first way — God on our side — leads inevitably to triumphalism, self-righteousness, bad theology, and often, dangerous foreign policy. The second way — asking if we are on God's side — leads to much healthier things, namely, penitence and even repentance, humility, reflection, and even accountability. We need much more of all these, because these are often the missing values of politics.
-- Jim Wallis, "God's Politics"

The best response to fundamentalism is to take religion more seriously than fundamentalism usually does. The best critique of fundamentalism comes from faith itself, which challenges the accommodation of fundamentalism to theocracy, power, and violence. It is faith that leads us to assert the vital religious commitments that fundamentalists often leave out, namely compassion, social justice, peacemaking, humility, tolerance, and even democracy as a religious commitment.
-- Jim Wallis, "God's Politics"

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 25, 2007 07:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
It would take the better part of a school day to recite prayers from all those religions that you named in your post, Eleanore and the many more religions that comprise America.

Naturally. Which is why I wouldn't suggest something that ridiculous, Mirandee. (Nor am I suggesting that you suggested I did and so forth.)

I do agree that a moment of silence is not pushing too far without enforcing any one religious prayer/meditation over any other.

There is no easy answer. Just looking at schools ...

Let's say we ban religious jewellery/articles of clothing reasoning that we don't want certain minority students to be easier targets. Ok. What about kids that will be absent on non-Christian (minority in most cases)holidays? Will that make them easier targets? Should we not tolerate students being absent for religious reasons anymore?

Or even something as simple as lunch. Do we show tolerance for dietary restrictions (very often based on religious/spiritual faith) and encourage schools to provide (if deemed necessary by staff, parents, etc.) healthy alternatives for students who don't eat pork or cow, who are kosher, or who are even vegetarians? Do we let kids bring their own lunches even if they are different? Or do we just ban lunch altogether so no one is singled out as eating differently and thus possibly being a religious minority? *


There is no logic there. Being afraid of religious differences or the kinds of things people will do about them is not going to make us more tolerant.

Imagine if the same thing had been done with race issues! "Well, gee, sending that one little black girl into an all white school will cause her torment and possible danger. Let's just keep segregation alive." Or what? Create special suits that will hide our skin color differences so no one has to feel intimidated by being a minority?

Obviously things will never get that absurd. At least, I hope not. But that's the lack of logic applied to banning the things that make us different from being made public so that no one could possibly be hurt by some hateful jerk(s).

That's like telling homosexual high school students to keep it to themselves and act straight (majority in most cases) so that they don't attract attention and become targets. Or heck, just ban relationships between students altogether so that no one is singled out as possibly being in the sexual minority and thus targeted for an attack.


Maybe that kind of thinking will keep people from being attacked physically or even verbally but it's not going to get us an inch closer to tolerance, imo. And without tolerance for our differences, where are we? Oh yeah. The past ... and even right here. (As in historical time frame, not LL at this moment.)

Again, I don't think the government should endorse one religion over others. I don't think we should be made to pray or worship against our wills one government sponsored religion. But I do think people should be free to express themselves religiously, whether it's a kid wearing a pentacle at school or a merchant hanging up Hannukah decorations or an employee taking a moment to pray before working or having a meal, etc.

*As a veggie myself, I assure you that my meals were a frequent topic of discussion and sometimes ridicule in highschool. But for every idiot** making remarks about my "rabbit" food, there was another kid or two curious about my reasons and tolerant of our differences. And no, I didn't wish that a teacher had stepped in and saved me from "harassment" but I did learn how to deal calmly with ignorant and antagonistic people. I also learned that not everyone is an idiot and that, in fact, idiots are the minority. Let's ban education so no one picks on idiots?

** Idiot as in foolish, uneducated or ignorant ... I assure you I am not picking on the mentally handicapped.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 25, 2007 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Notice, once again Mirandee you provided no proof of your absurd allegations. Just the bare allegation that Falwell, Robertson et al were urging a Christian theoracy on America.

Do you have a shread of proof...such as articles or mission statements you can link to? I think not. It's just more of your leftist bullshiit you attempt to drop into conversations here.

As for Jim Wallis and Sojourners. Well, I've covered this leftist twit already...several times.

You have accussed the so called religious right of engaging in politics...as though that's somehow a sin against America, against Constitutional government in some way...or against perhaps, God.

Perhaps you've already forgotten the statement I posted directily from the Sojourners site...written by none other than Jim Wallis...a leftist political activist who has totally forgotten the mission of the Church...as laid down by Jesus Christ. That mission Mirandee is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ around the world..of the coming Kingdom of God....which by the way Mirandee will NOT be brought about by man, by men, by women, by leftists/socialists/communists or by conservatives and capitalists. How absurd and how arrogant to believe that God needs man to establish or bring about the Kingdom of God.

This is from the Sojourners site. This gives all the proof needed to totally deflate your absurd position that religious folk shouldn't participate in the political process or attempt to interject their beliefs of morality into the political process. That's exactly what you, other leftists, the leftist World Council of Churches, the leftist National Council of Churches and the leftist so called Christian Jim Wallis ARE attempting to do.

How about this Mirandee. Take your leftis hypocrisy and stuff it....since every article posted on the Sojourners site is a POLITICAL statement attempting to influence the political process, since the World Council of Churches and the National Council are ALL about politics and not at all about the mission of the Church.

Here...in big bold typeface, you will find the overriding theme of the Sojourners site.

God's Politics a blog by Jim Wallis and friends
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/

As usual Mirandee, your hypocrisy is broad and deep.

Now, where's the proof I've asked you for...this, for at least the third time now...that so called right wing Christians are attempting to establish a Christian theoracy in the United States.

If you can't find the proof then Mirandee it's just the usual leftist bullshiit I've said it is...the usual from leftists.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 25, 2007 12:23 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LOL, Jwhop. Whatever. You must be right about everything you say about me.

Truthfully, I don't think you read one word of what I posted here. But that's okay because it was meant for others who do want to hear both sides of the story and know what other Christians and other religions are saying and how true Christianity really is. The religious right in no way represents true Christianity. Or any other form of true spirituality. They represent themselves and their own power and control agendas. They only use and hide behind the guise of Christianity. To them the Bible is a weapon to beat others over the head with and force their own beliefs on everyone else.

The fact remains, that so many other religions would not be speaking out in opposition to Pat Robinson, Falwell, and Charles Dobson and those people who make up the Religious Right if their religions were not threatened in some way or frankly, just because they know it is all so morally wrong to use God and religion for your own agendas of power and control. And because they also know that everything the Religious Right represents is anti-Christian, anti-religion and anti-democracy.

AG, Good quotes.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 26, 2007 12:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How many sides of the same story of absolutes do you think there are Mirandee?

You still haven't provided a single name of a so called Christian leader or a single so called Christian demonination who are urging a so called Christian theoracy on the United States.

I know the reason you cannot and so does everyone else.

On the other hand, it's the so called christian leftists who are urging their own brand of so called christianity on the rest of America...or trying to by attempts to codify into US law their precepts of what their so called brand of christianity is all about.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 26, 2007 01:59 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes I have provided the names, Jwhop. You, who accuse others of dealing in absolutes, just have chosen to ignore that fact and continue to chant the same mantra.

The Religious Right is comprised of fundalmentalist people from different Christian denominations, predominantly evangelitical and Protestant religions of predominantly the southern Bible Belt, but there are also fundamentalist Catholics in what is called the Religious Right. Do you want the names of all those people, Jwhop? LOL Good luck with that.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 29, 2007 11:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Exactly what other kind of Christian could there be...besides a fundamentalist Christian Mirandee.

One who actually believes.

Do you actually believe one could or can be a Christian without believing and acting on what's written in the New Testament? Do you believe you are free to pick and choose what to believe and act upon among what you've found written there?

Yet, you and other leftists use the phrase Fundamentalist Christian as a pejorative term....when there can truly be no other kind.

You have furnished no proof whatsoever for your absurd charges...which is the usual for leftists of all stripes. We're just supposed to take your word for it. Sorry, you lost any credibility for telling the truth long ago.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 31, 2007 03:32 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Religion is only the topic of this thread in light of separation of church and state. We are not here for catechism class, Jwhop.

The topic deals with religious freedom. Religious freedom means that you can be a fundalmentalist if you choose and I don't have to be a fundalmentalist if I choose to not be one and we can both be believers.

We are talking about the freedom to choose and practice whatever religious beliefs we have in a democracy without having others force their beliefs on us. And also the freedom to choose not to be a believer or practice any religion.

We are discussing Christianity only because it is the religion of the Religious Right, which is comprised of Christians of all denominations and faiths, that are trying through laws to force their religious beliefs on others. That is not democratic and it is not constitutional.

I would prefer to stick to that topic instead of the side trips you are offering here that are only designed to get us off a topic that you don't like.

You are the only one here asking for proof, Jwhop. Probably because everyone else on this thread is informed enough of what is actually going on in this country to the degree that they already have all the proof they need. We all know by now that any proof we present at your request would be unacceptable if it disagrees with you so why bother? Go read up on it yourself. I'm not doing your homework for you.

quote:
Sorry, you lost any credibility for telling the truth long ago.

Since you have been the only one here at GU to call me a liar, Jwhop I don't take that statement by you as a consensus of opinion. And even if more did agree with you I know I am not liar so it really doesn't matter to me what you think.

You have never been able to offer proof of that statement either, Jwhop. It only amounts to an accusation of yours. I give my thoughts and opinions like everyone else here. Opinions are merely what we think or how we feel. How does one offer proof regarding an opinion or thought, Jwhop? We draw our opinions based on many, many things. Mostly from observation and inner thought. For that reason it is absurd on your part on a discussion forum to request proof for every little opinion from me or anyone else. Which we all know you would not accept even if we had it notarized.

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 31, 2007 07:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Isn't one of the hardest things about this issue the fact that our laws do represent our religious/spiritual beliefs?

Different laws have existed in different countries/cultures for so long and they are all heavily tied to the religion/spirituality of the people ... or at least have been so in the past.

Perhaps we're moving away from that now but how can that really be quantified?

Just for the sake of discussion ...

If America were simply a Democracy (and even now it leans heavily towards democracy in many instances) and not a Republic and considering the fact that, last I checked, somewhere about 70% of the US population considers themselves some sort of a Christian ... what is so terribly wrong about the majority of the population voting for laws/measures that represent/coincide with their religious beliefs?

Do we want a true Democracy where majority (in this case Christians) rules? Or do we want a country where minorities are protected in spite of the majority at times (Republic as we know it)?


IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a