patrick.net

FortWayne says

It is ridiculous that in the name of "equality" liberals today want to filter out Christianity from our culture.

I don't want to filter out Christianity from our culture because of equality. I want to filter out Christianity from our culture for the exact same reasons you want to filter out Islam from our culture, namely Christian culture is evil. Yep, evil. Yep, even American Christian. Why? Well, there was that whole slavery thing, that whole Native American genocide thing, and anti-gay bigotry. So, yep, Christian American culture is evil.

However, I don't want to use the law or the force of government to filter out Christian culture. I want to use education and persuasion to get people to abandon these evil Bronze/Iron Age religions.

Now, what we liberals want to use the law to filter out is Christian theocracy including
1. passing legislation based on any religion
2. giving tax advantages to any religion (where do Satanists sign up for tax-free status?)
3. letting the religious pick the textbooks that students read
4. the loss of any liberty for the sake of "Christian values"
5. discrimination in the court system in favor of Christians and against everyone else (I found Jesus five minutes after the cops found me.)
6. any violation of the equality under law principle

You see, the Constitution is my bible, and the 14th Amendment says we're all equal under law with the same rights and no privileges. So fuck any religion that undermines that.

thunderlips11 says

We don't need immigrants, because we have massively underutilized human resources born right here in the USA:

What is "human resources"? Something to be ground up and filled into sausage links? Every human being is different. People becoming unemployed because nobody can think of putting these specific human beings to work in a way that can be profitable. Immigrants with new ideas (due to their different upbringing) can come up with new ways of doing business, just look at how many silicon valley start up's were founded by immigrants. Immigrant offering ridiculously low labor cost can offer native employers business opportunity; take for example the landscaping business, low immigrant labor cost makes it possible for landscaping businesses to stay in business, more yards are taken care of, more supplies are purchased, more restaurants and dry cleaners are patronized by the business owners and their families, etc. etc. That's what economy is made of: real people doing real work that is profitable, not waste-of-time paper checking like the Nazis did.

thunderlips11 says

Immigrants are Union-busters, why business loves 'em and landless rural poor whites and blacks (the people who used to have good jobs in the formerly unionized Meatpacking plants) hate 'em.:

Unions have never been successful organizing low income jobs. Unions only succeed in industries where workers already make more more than free market competitive rate. I will leave to you as homework where the money for that labor price premium ultimately comes from.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/y6nFCc9-iqE

FortWayne says

Christianity is fine, it's the Muslims who are coming here to live an American
life, who instead of trying to blend into our culture create their own
subculture based on their religion of hatred and extremism.

This is commonly stated by people trying to gin up fear of American muslims, and people point to Europe's muslim immigrants as proof that their xenophobia is justified. They fail to note that one huge factor is not religious, but economic. Muslims who emigrate to, say, France or England, probably were not particularly good neighbors in their own country, and go as far as their means take them, which is usually an ethnic enclave in a poor section of their new country. Unemployment runs into double digits for NATIVE locals in these areas, leaving the un-assimilated muslim arrivals with greater than 50% unemployment, which is itself a barrier to further assimilation.

Muslims that emigrate all the way to America have much greater economic opportunities, and the Muslims already here tend to be far more assimilated and westernized, which accelerates this process in new arrivals.

Pointing to the worst of Europe's muslim immigrant problems as an example of what is to come in America is disingenuous at best.

Dan8267 says

What is utterly ridiculous is using tax payer money for religious displays and placing those displays in government buildings. For example, it is every bit as wrong to have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse as it is to have Sharia Law in a courthouse and for the exact same reasons.

I agree on the subsidies and I am also against the tax-exempt status. Also the courthouse is a special case because it's the judicial branch. But nowhere was I arguing for taxpayer funded pompous displays of religion. And I disagree on the celebration, even public institutions have the right to observe and celebrate federal holidays. Holidays have been changed, discarded and added throughout history and there was often a traditional or cultural aspect that you can never 100% distinguish from religious traditions. Even Christmas has been celebrated entirely different throughout Christian or pagan cultures all around the world. And forcing all the countries in the world to celebrate the same governmental, strictly non-religious holidays only even violates the prime directive of non-interference - let the kids have their x-mas play, will ya? ;)

Dan8267 says

I want to filter out Christianity from our culture for the exact same reasons you want to filter out Islam from our culture, namely Christian culture is evil.

While this is not of statistical significance, I know quite a few people who would label themselves as Christians who do a lot of good for this world and I donate to one of my friend's Christian cause every once in a while where they take street kids around the world and give them health care and shelter and try to get them off the streets long term. I could care less under which religion he does what I consider as "good", but he is absolutely selfless and a true hero in my eyes although I am sure I'd disagree on some of his views. You have named a lot of bad examples which no doubt exist, but no group or culture is entirely evil or entirely good, not even the culture of atheists ;)

Reality says

thunderlips11 says

We don't need immigrants, because we have massively underutilized human resources born right here in the USA:

What is "human resources"? Something to be ground up and filled into sausage links? Every human being is different. People becoming unemployed because nobody can think of putting these specific human beings to work in a way that can be profitable. Immigrants with new ideas (due to their different upbringing) can come up with new ways of doing business, just look at how many silicon valley start up's were founded by immigrants. Immigrant offering ridiculously low labor cost can offer native employers business opportunity; take for example the landscaping business, low immigrant labor cost makes it possible for landscaping businesses to stay in business, more yards are taken care of, more supplies are purchased, more restaurants and dry cleaners are patronized by the business owners and their families, etc. etc. That's what economy is made of: real people doing real work that is profitable, not waste-of-time paper checking like the Nazis did.

Repeal the 13th amendment!

Dan8267 says

Just take a look at the Christian right in this country.

The ones who came here in the beginning ? the first settlers like Jamestown..
took the risk based on their faith. Started a Colony and Later a nation.

Yep.. just look at what Christians did in this country.

So where were you and the rest of the liberals ?

mell says

even public institutions have the right to observe and celebrate federal holidays

Public institutions do not celebrate holidays, people do. The controversy has always been when public institutions observe the holidays of some religions while disregarding the holidays of the vast majority of religions. When was the last time the federal government observed a Wiccan, Hindu, or pagan holiday? The government should not favor or advocate any religion.

No secularist has ever complained about individual people deciding to take PTO time for their religious holiday, whatever the hell religion they subscribe to. No secularist has ever advocated infringing on the right of the individual to observe any holiday.

What secularist don't want is religious intrusion into government, which unfortunately happens all the time in this country. Blue laws, anti-gay laws, printing "in God we trust" on money are all examples of such offensive and dangerous intrusion. Can you imagine "in Satan we trust" or "in Allah we trust" on our money? There would be a revolution.

mell says

Even Christmas has been celebrated entirely different throughout Christian or pagan cultures all around the world.

Actually, it was the pagan holiday of the Winter Solstice that came first. The early Christian church change the birthday of Christ to approximately match the Winter Solstice in order to co-op and corrupt the pagan holiday. So, if you really want to honor the holiday, City Hall should display a proper pagan orgy on its lawn. I'd be ok with that.

mell says

let the kids have their x-mas play, will ya? ;)

Again, no secularist has ever, ever, ever opposed that. I even give gifts on Christmas. I just don't put a crucifix in Congress.

mell says

While this is not of statistical significance, I know quite a few people who would label themselves as Christians who do a lot of good for this world

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg

If you read my posts carefully, you'll notice that I have never said "religious people are evil", but rather I have always said "religion is evil". There is a monumental difference in those two statements.

A religion is a hierarchical power structure based on superstition. Superstition is a pack of lies. To base any authority or institution on lies is to insure that the institution becomes corrupt because it must continue to compound lies and oppose the truth. This is one of the reasons why religion is fundamentally evil. It does not matter the particular lies, or mythology if you prefer. All religions must oppose the truth and any kind of rational thought process that leads to uncovering the truth or the entire foundation of the religion would collapse. Example: No Christian religion will accept the truth that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Faith and superstition, or "spirituality" if you prefer, although not as bad a religion is also inherently bad for similar reasons. Faith and superstition are the antithesis of reasoning and evidence-based judgment. As such, they fundamentally must cause bad decision making because they ignore reality in favor of a fantasy.

Can a person be good despite the handicaps of faith, superstition, and religion? Of course. But I would submit that person would be even better without that handicap.

When you get right down to it, religions, including Christian ones, are basically comic book stories. And that's fine so long as no one takes them seriously. But most of the fans do take them very seriously. Imagine if Congress argued over whether the Hulk could lift Thor's Hammer and this actually impacted whether or not we went to war or our national budget. Imagine if your liberties were determine by whether the fans of Super Girl or the fans of Power Girl were in power. This is exactly what does happen except replacing the comic book geek with a clergyman. Oh, and the stories in the Bible are no less ridiculous and childish and the characters no more two-dimensional as the ones in a Marvell comic book. The only difference between The Hulk vs. The Thing and Leviticus is that one is older and thus written by Bronze Age bigots.

thomaswong.1986 says

The ones who came here in the beginning ? the first settlers like Jamestown..

took the risk based on their faith. Started a Colony and Later a nation.

Yep.. just look at what Christians did in this country.

So where were you and the rest of the liberals ?

1. The Puritans did not start our country. The Puritans lived in the 1600s and would be considered "terrorists" under the USA Patriot Act for their acts of violence in England. Our country was founded in 1776 by tax evaders, not Puritans.

2. What the early Christian settlers did was commit the largest genocide in human history. They literally wipe out an entire continent of people. Even Hitler didn't come close to that.

3. If it weren't for the pagan heathens known today as Native Americans, those Puritans wouldn't have survived the winter. Yes, these are the same pagans those Puritans would betray and murder.

4. This country was founded by liberals. In fact the entire foundation of America is liberalism from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the Federalist Papers. Liberalism was the product of the Age of Enlightenment, to which all the founding fathers subscribed. The fact that you would imply that our nation was founded by conservative Christians and not liberals demonstrates you complete lack of historical knowledge and understanding.

The founding fathers were not just liberals. They were liberal radicals who rebelled against all tradition and social norms. Their entire paradigm of government was based on the works of Enlightenment philosophers, particularly John Locke. Here, I'll dumb it down for you.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/X-buzVjYQvY

For more advanced readers, here's a clip of John Locke in one of his philosophy discussions.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/mZNLlql7bpA

The founding fathers were also socialist. George Washington -- yes, that George Washington -- was the first president who signed into law the use of federal tax revenue to pay for poor houses.

And they certainly weren't Christian conservatives...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/EboievTuNcU

Dan8267 says

No secularist has ever complained about individual people deciding to take PTO time for their religious holiday, whatever the hell religion they subscribe to. No secularist has ever advocated infringing on the right of the individual to observe any holiday.

The first modern secularist regime, that of the French Revolution, seemed to have executed hundreds of priests in an anti-religious frenzy. Secularist regimes of the 20th century systematically slaughtered millions citing the victims' religions.

Dan8267 says

printing "in God we trust" on money are all examples of such offensive and dangerous intrusion. Can you imagine "in Satan we trust" or "in Allah we trust" on our money? There would be a revolution.

The pyramid and all-seeing-eye on the dollar bill from the very beginning are clearly Masonic symbols, either secularist or "satanic" depending on your perspective. "In God We Trust" was added in the 50's as bit of a joke during the Cold War; it was an attempt by the political establishment to borrow religion to serve the interest of the state, not trying to use state power to serve religion.

Dan8267 says

Imagine if Congress argued over whether the Hulk could lift Thor's Hammer and this actually impacted whether or not we went to war or our national budget.

No need to imagine anything. Assad vs. Al Queda fighters, hmm how much do we really know about them? compared to two-dimentional comic book characters cooked up for us?

Dan8267 says

the stories in the Bible are no less ridiculous and childish and the characters no more two-dimensional as the ones in a Marvell comic book.

Many of the books in the Bible after Genesis (which was written later than the latter books in the sequence) actually had historical facts as basis, often modified under heavy political pressure when written, just like most historical documents we have passed down to us today.

Dan8267 says

1. The Puritans did not start our country. The Puritans lived in the 1600s and would be considered "terrorists" under the USA Patriot Act for their acts of violence in England. Our country was founded in 1776 by tax evaders, not Puritans.

2. What the early Christian settlers did was commit the largest genocide in human history. They literally wipe out an entire continent of people. Even Hitler didn't come close to that.

There you go again... anti Christian bigot once again...

Dan8267 says

4. This country was founded by liberals. In fact the entire foundation of America is liberalism from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the Federalist Papers. Liberalism was the product of the Age of Enlightenment, to which all the founding fathers subscribed. The fact that you would imply that our nation was founded by conservative Christians and not liberals demonstrates you complete lack of historical knowledge and understanding.

Laughable once again.. as if the founders were not Christians...

" that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights "

we are very fortunate to have had great leadership and believers.

But if you want examples of evil.. there are plenty....

r. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987

Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:
“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

Reality says

The first modern secularist regime, that of the French Revolution, seemed to have executed hundreds of priests in an anti-religious frenzy. Secularist regimes of the 20th century systematically slaughtered millions citing the victims' religions.

I was talking about secularists in modern America, which is exactly what the discussion was about, but if you want to expand the discussion to include secularists of other time periods and nations, I'm game.

What exactly are you saying? That secularism is a violent philosophy and that secularist are inherently violent? Or that secularism is a bad philosophy and that we should have a theocracy instead? Also, please provide reference material regarding exactly who was killing whom.

Reality says

"In God We Trust" was added in the 50's as bit of a joke during the Cold War; it was an attempt by the political establishment to borrow religion to serve the interest of the state, not trying to use state power to serve religion.

I would hardly call it a joke, but yes, this was a case of government using religion for its own means (in this case reducing support for communism), which is every bit as dangerous as religion using government. Either way, the separation of church and state falls and unjust laws get passed.

Reality says

Many of the books in the Bible after Genesis (which was written later than the latter books in the sequence) actually had historical facts as basis, often modified under heavy political pressure when written, just like most historical documents we have passed down to us today.

In the exact same way that many comic books like Captain America are based on historical facts. Just look at Captain America fighting Nazis. Nazis did exist, and they came from Germany, and America fought them during WWII. Therefore, it is reasonable to teach 20th century history from Captain American comic books.

Actually more historically accurate than Wikipedia.

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

thomaswong.1986 says

There you go again... anti Christian bigot once again...

So, if I'm against the Holocaust, I'm an anti-Christian bigot as well?

thomaswong.1986 says

Laughable once again.. as if the founders were not Christians...

Another Straw Man argument. I never said the founding fathers weren't Christians. I said the founding fathers weren't "Christian Conservatives" or Puritans as you claimed. The founding fathers were Protestant secularists and non-Christian secular deists ("Nature's God") who believed strongly in the separation of church and state like all other liberals.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli, signed November 4, 1796 by President John Adams

Thomas Jefferson was no Christian. He even rewrote the Bible removing all references to the divine nature of Jesus. And here are some of the things he said about Christianity.

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.

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

Of course, this is all besides the point. Fools like Tommy will never actual address any of the specific points made by their opposition such as the four points I made above. Notice how Tommy ignores altogether that which he cannot refute.

Dan8267 says

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli, signed November 4, 1796 by President John Adams

a treaty with Pirates to stop pirates from enslaving Americans on the seas. Is not the US constitution, Bill of rights or any statements by the founding fathers.
perhaps the readers should be informed about the so called treaty with Arab pirates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

why make such a statement to stop pirates from hijacking American ships or why was it not present in the Arab version of the treaty... what did congress approve anyway and why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Article 11

Although Article 11 has been a point of contention in popular culture disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States, no academic historian has suggested the treaty provides evidence to settle that question in either direction. Some religious spokesmen claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.[11] Some historians, secular and religious, have argued that the phrase specifically refers to the government and not the culture, that it only speaks of the founding and not what America became or might become,[13] and that many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian nation during the early Republic.[14]

The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with only scant public dissent, most notably from William Cobbett.[16]

At least one member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, is known to have protested the language of article 11, prior to its ratification.[18] A second Treaty of Tripoli signed on July 4, 1805 superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Dan8267 says

Thomas Jefferson was no Christian

You want to take a shot with similar claims with all the other founding fathers ?

Dan8267 says

Another Straw Man argument. I never said the founding fathers weren't Christians.....Thomas Jefferson was no Christian.

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were self-declared deists, i.e., they ascribed to deism.

de·ism (dzm, d-) n.
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deistic

This religious belief is utterly incompatible with Christianity, which is based on the belief that Jesus Christ was god and the son of god and came to Earth and died for mankind's sins and rose from the dead. That's hardly "abandoning the universe" after creation.

Contrary to what dumb-asses like Tommy say, not every person in history who believed in a singular god believed in the Christian god, even if they lived in a predominantly Christian culture.

Furthermore, all of the founding fathers believed in separation of church and state, and nothing Tommy has posted suggests otherwise. Here are a few direct quotes proving the founders believed in absolute separation of church and state.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it's a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."- Benjamin Franklin

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -James Madison

"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

Hell, even George Washington was a Deist, not a Christian.

"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie

"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson

But George Washington was a liberal...

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation" -- George Washington

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- George Washington

Damn that libduh George Washington. I guess that answers your question, "So where were you and the rest of the liberals?".

But let's look at the quotes Tommy cherry-picked...

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." - George Washington

Nowhere does this imply that Washington himself was a Christian or believed in the resurrection of Christ. In fact, Washington could not believe in that doctrine, the central doctrine of Christianity and still be a Deist.

This is simply a politician placating the masses, as Washington often did, without actually committing. The old fox was too cunning, indeed.

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." - John Adams

Yes, John Adams was a Christian, not a Deist. Of course, I never claimed that John Adams was a Deist. I claimed that John Adams was a liberal and believed in separation of church and state.

On being liberal...
“Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” - John Adams

On separation of church and state...
"Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." -- John Adams

So you see, John Adams was not a Christian Conservative. He was an East-Coast Liberal Elite Christian, just like Bill Mayer pointed out.

Oh, and I really have to remind you again, John Adams, was the president who signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". 'Nuff said.

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped." - Benjamin Franklin

You'll notice that Franklin does not anywhere say this "God" is the Christian god. That's because the god Franklin worshipped wasn't Jesus. Franklin did not believe Jesus rose from the dead. He believed in a clockmaker god who created the universe and then was completely hands off.

And by the way, the founding fathers lived in a very religiously intolerant period. For them to rock the boat, even a little, is damn radical. Even suggesting that you didn't accept the divinity of Jesus back then would be like taking a huge dump on a nativity scene today. In all likelihood, if the founding fathers had been born in the past 30 years, they would almost definitely all be hard-core atheists. Deism is to the Age of Enlightenment what atheism is to today.

So enough of this nonsense in rewriting history to suit your religious beliefs, Tommy.

Dan8267 says

Furthermore, all of the founding fathers believed in separation of church and state, and nothing Tommy has posted suggests otherwise. Here are a few direct quotes proving the founders believed in absolute separation of church and state.

based on a Treaty with Pirates where such text was removed from the Arab Pirates version and later removed from the US english version.

Dan8267 says

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped." - Benjamin Franklin

You'll notice that Franklin does not anywhere say this "God" is the Christian god. That's because the god Franklin worshipped wasn't Jesus. Franklin did not believe Jesus rose from the dead. He believed in a clockmaker god who created the universe and then was completely hands off.

The man who started the daily prayer in Congress.. oh well that explains it all.

thomaswong.1986 says

a treaty with Pirates to stop pirates from enslaving Americans on the seas. Is not the US constitution, Bill of rights or any statements by the founding fathers.

perhaps the readers should be informed about the so called treaty with Arab pirates.

A nation's treaties say as much about its philosophy as does its Constitution. And it most certainly does establish John Adams' belief in that America is not founded on Christianity. This is indisputable. John Adams has literally gone on the record as stating America is not a Christian nation.

Oh, and by the way, quoting Wikipedia only makes you look like a dumb ass.

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

Thomas Jefferson was no Christian

You want to take a shot with similar claims with all the other founding fathers ?

I've establish that most of the founding fathers were Deists, a belief utterly incompatible with Christianity, and the ones that weren't Deists were Liberal Christian Secularists, not Christian Conservatives. They were the exact type of East-Coast Liberal Elite that the Tea Party despises.

And not once have you refuted the specific evidence I provided that the founding fathers were hard-core liberals and socialists, or that most of them were Deists. Game, set, match.

When Congress authorized a day of fasting in 1778 during the war, Washington told his soldiers:

"The Honorable Congress having thought proper to recommend to The United States of America to set apart Wednesday the 22nd. instant to be observed as a day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, that at one time and with one voice the righteous dispensations of Providence may be acknowledged and His Goodness and Mercy toward us and our Arms supplicated and implored; The General directs that this day also shall be religiously observed in the Army, that no work be done thereon and that the Chaplains prepare discourses suitable to the Occasion."

I can only conclude that Tommyboy isn't actually reading my responses but just causally glancing over them. How else could he quote Wikipedia after I lambasted it with the Captain America cartoon? How else could he ignore all the quotes establishing that Washington was a Deist and how the quotes he reference do not imply otherwise?

Of course, it could just be sheer stupidity, but given how Tommyboy replies so quickly, I think he's not even bothering to read the counterarguments. If one does not read his opponent's counterarguments, then one cannot intelligently respond to them.

Dan8267 says

Oh, and by the way, quoting Wikipedia only makes you look like a dumb ass.

Wiki like other sources point out.. errors were made and the 1805 version makes no such reference .. you cannot find the same text in the Arab version. It another lie by atheist.

A second Treaty of Tripoli signed on July 4, 1805 superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp

Dan8267 says

then one cannot intelligently respond to them.

laughable.. your just a common atheist propagandist.

Dan8267 says

hard-core liberals and socialists,

BIG GOVERNMENT liberals... i think not! You will have to look to the French Revolution for Liberal and Socialist. And the Blood bath that followed. And we certainly did NOT have any Emperors after the revolution as the French did.

Dan8267 says

What exactly are you saying? That secularism is a violent philosophy and that secularist are inherently violent? Or that secularism is a bad philosophy and that we should have a theocracy instead? Also, please provide reference material regarding exactly who was killing whom.

There can be pacifist secularists and agitated/violent/bigoted secularists . . . just like for the religious crowd. There's nothing intrinsically innocent or evil about secularism as a set of belief per se.

As for reference material regarding exactly who was killing whom, it's way too numerous to even list. The number of religious people (Christians, Buddists, and etc.) that the various communist regimes in the 20th century killed in the USSR, China, Vietnam and Cambodia numbered into tens of millions . . . or roughly 4 orders of magnitude greater than the infamous Star Chamber that you used to love to cite against Christian persecution.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Many of the books in the Bible after Genesis (which was written later than the latter books in the sequence) actually had historical facts as basis, often modified under heavy political pressure when written, just like most historical documents we have passed down to us today.

In the exact same way that many comic books like Captain America are based on historical facts. Just look at Captain America fighting Nazis. Nazis did exist, and they came from Germany, and America fought them during WWII. Therefore, it is reasonable to teach 20th century history from Captain American comic books.

The difference is that there are plenty primary and secondary sources from WWII before any study of WWII have to rely on the comic books as information source . . . whereas for the study of middleast, palestine and especially the Jewish tribal history and possibly its relation to Egyptian dynasty between about 1500BC to about 400BC, the Old Testament is one of the few authentic extensive documents that we have today, despite various political coloration may have been introduced by Ezra (the scribe credited with much of the authorship) under Persian tutelage.

If all historical documents and sources on WWII were destroyed and almost entirely lost to us, all we have today were some war time and immediate post-war propaganda poststers, then our study of WWII would have no choice but to start there. The alternative would be denying WWII ever happened! Nazis and Americans were all made up! That seems to be what you are suggesting.

Fortunately for us, Ezra (and whoever worked with him) seemed to have managed to convey more information in the old testament passages than simple two-dimensional propaganda, despite their likely Persian overseers.

Dan8267 says

then one cannot intelligently respond to them

There are no Christians here tying to convert others to Christianity..
but you are the only one here trying to convert others to atheism
not to mention making false claims (lies) at what ever cost, like
a socialist, the ends justify the means...

And you made plenty of lies tonite... as such you have no morals,
no ethics, and plenty of hate towards Christians.

Dan8267 says

I've establish that most of the founding fathers were Deists, a belief utterly incompatible with Christianity, and the ones that weren't Deists were Liberal Christian Secularists, not Christian Conservatives. They were the exact type of East-Coast Liberal Elite that the Tea Party despises.

The leaders of 1776 had a broad spectrum of religious beliefs. Almost every single one of them at least nominally acknolwedged Christianity. Accusing each other of being atheists was used as the most dastardly personal defamations in later years when they were engaged in election campaigns against each other (e.g. Adams vs. Jefferson). The common thread that held them together in 1776 was anti-taxation; most of them were owners of small to mid-sized businesses, whose interests were endangered by big businesses with special privileges granted by the government. That makes them very similar to the tea party more than two centuries later.

Reality says

First of all, it should be noted that you have entirely abandoned your original thesis (prosperity correlating to low immigration) by not answering my point that the decades of lowest immigration were decades of misery not prosperity.

That's not my point nor yours. The backlash to immigration began in the 30s, but the 40s and 50s and 60s were only slightly higher, nowhere near the levels of the 20s, 80s-today. Nowhere near it, a fraction of it, as can be seen from the charts.

You are harping on the 1930s, the aftermath of the Great Depress - which began during a decade of absolutely massive immigration dwarfed only by the current wave which is stronger. Immigration was cut off during the depression. Then, returning to a very modest level of immigration, we launched into the greatest rise of general prosperity in Human History. Holocaust Victims were turned away! That's how strict immigration policy was after WW2.

The 40s-60s produced the greatest increase in the standard of living for the median American, because labor was scarce and valuable. Businesses trained the employees, instead of the employees going into debt to train themselves and hoping they guessed correctly the skills that would be needed in the future, and businesses provided generous benefits to attract workers as they were in fierce competition with each other for scarce labor.

In turn, Americans began spending money like water creating even more economic growth.

You say immigration increased rapidly in the 50s, it did - but it was still a fraction of what it was during periods of high immigration like today or the 20s. It was about 85% lower during that period than today. By wording it so, you are giving the impression that there was a massive bout of immigration in the 50s, there wasn't. It was much closer in numbers to other non-open immigration periods than to high immigration periods.

In fact, adjusted for relative populations of the US and the World in the mid 20th vs. the mid-late 19th, the 30s-60s admission numbers were actually very low.

For our own native poor, the Marxian idea about the "Reserve Army of Labor", which is the role poor whites and urban blacks fill in the USA. Last to be hired, first to be fired, and a good source of cannon fodder. A large, intermittently employed group keeps wages law.

Point is we have our own people who are not employed, which belies the idea that there is a shortage of laborers. If there was, businesses would employ them, having no other choice. The labor force participation rate is in the toilet now, and wages haven't kept pace with productivity gains OR GDP Growth for about 30 years, all of which is evidence in the favor of my position.Reality says

Immigrant offering ridiculously low labor cost can offer native employers business opportunity; take for example the landscaping business, low immigrant labor cost makes it possible for landscaping businesses to stay in business, more yards are taken care of, more supplies are purchased, more restaurants and dry cleaners are patronized by the business owners and their families, etc. etc. That's what economy is made of: real people doing real work that is profitable, not waste-of-time paper checking like the Nazis did.

Good idea! Let's repeal the minimum wage and all the labor laws and eliminate SS/Medicare/Medicaid withholds.

That'll create massive wealth for all, since low labor costs apparently are the key to prosperity. That's worked out well in the past, as we saw in the antebellum South, the mines and forests of the West, and the factories of early 20th Century.

As for "paper-checking", the Nazis also used toilets, so unless you pee in an outhouse or behind the bushes, you're a Hitler-loving fascist. Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Automan Empire says

Pointing to the worst of Europe's muslim immigrant problems as an example of what is to come in America is disingenuous at best.

Not pointing to the worst. Immigrants in Sweden have an unemployment rate lower than the EU average, as the original article states.

Reality says

There's nothing intrinsically innocent or evil about secularism as a set of belief per se.

On that we agree. However, I would still submit that religion does invoke intolerance in people, whereas secularism does not. Just look at the marriage equality debate. The only people who are against equal rights for gays are the religious. That's not a coincidence.

Furthermore, religion causes bad thinking in regards to important policy making, whereas secularism does not. The only people who call climate change a hoax are those who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and Noah literally had two of each species on a boat. That's not a coincidence either.

Reality says

The leaders of 1776 had a broad spectrum of religious beliefs. Almost every single one of them at least nominally acknolwedged Christianity.

I wouldn't argue with that. The founders were politicians who lived in a time where they had to give lip service to Christianity. And some were liberal Christians, but most of the big names including Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were Deists. They believed in a clockmaker god, not the Jesus god. They did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and without that, you're not really a Christian. Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the Bible removing all the supernatural aspects of Christ. That's extremely liberal and subversive by the standards of his day.

Reality says

The first modern secularist regime, that of the French Revolution, seemed to have executed hundreds of priests in an anti-religious frenzy. Secularist regimes of the 20th century systematically slaughtered millions citing the victims' religions.

Here's Mark Twain on that:

There were two ‘Reigns of Terror’, if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the “horrors of the… momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror – that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

A guy who became more progressive as he got older.

Everybody mentions the pent-up rage unleashed during the few years of the revolution, but ignores the Centuries of Oppression, Promulgation of Superstition, and Economic and Legal Discrimination based on caste and power - and the Nobility and Church's reaction to anybody who spoke against it. St. Bart's Day? The Knights Templars? The Crusade against the Cathars? Countless peasant revolts, big and small? Mostly to loot them of money and land, and to make sure they didn't challenge the Feudal Nobility-Church power structure.

The Spanish Civil War had similar causes and effects. The chief Union Buster in Barcelona was a Bishop. Church-sponsored faux unions busted real unions with cheap labor when there was a strike. Priests and bishops were mostly in the pocket of big landowners (often their younger children), and snitched on the landless peasants to the big boss. Birth, Death, Marriage, Education - all controlled by the Spanish Church for centuries upon centuries. Nobody mentions this when the revolutionaries began to hang a few Priests - for their long history of collaborating with their oppressors.

thunderlips11 says

The backlash to immigration began in the 30s, but the 40s and 50s and 60s were only slightly higher, nowhere near the levels of the 20s, 80s-today. Nowhere near it, a fraction of it, as can be seen from the charts.

Look at the growth rate in the charts for yourself. The decade of 1951-60 saw a massive growth in immigration compared to the previous decade. It is the rate of change that matters in economics, not the absolute numbers themselves, in case you did not know.

Holocaust Victims were turned away! That's how strict immigration policy was after WW2.

Nonsense. You are confusing "during" and "after" WW2.
BTW, the low immigration number during the Great Depression and the War was not entirely the result of more strict immigration control. We are witnessing lower rate of immigration now during our current depression. Lower economic activity means lower goods and services being exchanged, that includes across borders.

The 40s-60s produced the greatest increase in the standard of living for the median American, because labor was scarce and valuable.

Do you really think having your husband, brother and father forcibly sent overseas and get shot at or coming back with physical and emotional injuries while you stay home having to budget gas coupons among many other coupons . . . was some kind of New Eden? Another idiot brainwashed by Keynesian nonsense historiography.

"Labor scarecity" is a silly concept for the period under discussion. Millions of GI came back after WWII flooding the labor pool. Policy makers were so afraid of lack of job opportunities that they had to institute GI bills to remove some of the labor supply to colleges.

For our own native poor, the Marxian idea about the "Reserve Army of Labor", which is the role poor whites and urban blacks fill in the USA. Last to be hired, first to be hired, and a good source of cannon fodder. A large, intermittently employed group keeps wages law.

If you read Marx, you'd know the necessity for such reserve labor force in a constantly changing capitalistic economy: labor has to be available for new business idea to be implemented. There can be two sources of such a reserve labor pool:
1. Native poor / under-employed
2. Import labor when needed
Since much of the native poor is eligible for welfare system, many of them have stopped active search for jobs simply because they are literally not hungry for jobs. What we have today is immigrants offering low price labor to businesses, which get taxed to pay for food stamps for the native poor, who then in turn don't find the urgency to find work.

Point is we have our own people who are not employed, which belies the idea that there is a shortage of laborers. If there was, businesses would employ them, having no other choice. The labor force participation rate is in the toilet now, and wages haven't kept pace with productivity gains OR GDP Growth for about 30 years, all of which is evidence in the favor of my position.

Businesses exist not to hire people, but to make profit. See my point in the previous paragraph. If the labor cost is too high for the business to be profitable, then the business would cease to exist, and that would be the end of the tax base to pay for food stamps. You can't be seriously ignorant of the fact that almost any business would hire a native if the wage to productivity ratio were the same; ease of communication counts for something.

Good idea! Let's repeal the minimum wage and all the labor laws and eliminate SS/Medicare/Medicaid withholds.

Repealing minimum wage and much of the tax burden would indeed solve the high youth unemployment rate problem that we are having.

That'll create massive wealth for all, since low labor costs apparently are the key to prosperity.

Not labor cost per se, but mandatory minimum labor cost (minimum wage and tax on top of it) literally prevent hiring from taking place.

That's worked out well in the past, as we saw in the antebellum South, the mines and forests of the West, and the factories of early 20th Century.

Antebellum South had a slavery system, where the slaves had guaranteed retirement, free food, free housing, free medicine, free education, all at the discretion of their leaders. Fundamentally it's little different from the socialist welfare state. The primary difference between a slave plantation and an early socialist utopian colony was the latter's freedom for members to leave when thing went sour. The modern socialist welfare state is seems to lean towards preventing freedom of exit; i.e. it is similar to a slave plantation.

Factories of the early 20th century US were extremely productive . . . until some paternalistic idiots tried to run company towns similar to the socialist dystopia / slave plantation.

As for "paper-checking", the Nazis also used toilets, so unless you pee in an outhouse or behind the bushes, you're a Hitler-loving fascist. Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Using toilet was not unique to the Nazis. The western democracies at the time actually had high indoor plumbing usage than central Europe. When it came to bureaucratic paper pushing and paper checking, the Nazis far exceeded the Western Democracies, at the time.

Dan8267 says

The only people who are against equal rights for gays are the religious. That's not a coincidence.

I doubt Putin believes in any religion, today or ever. In fact, almost all the communist regimes were anti-gay.

Furthermore, religion causes bad thinking in regards to important policy making, whereas secularism does not. The only people who call climate change a hoax are those who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and Noah literally had two of each species on a boat. That's not a coincidence either.

I call AGW a hoax. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old or Noah.

You need to get outside of your own imaginary world sometimes. Your zealotry against other people's faith is indicative of yourself being afflicted by a faith-based belief system.

Reality says

The difference is that there are plenty primary and secondary sources from WWII before any study of WWII have to rely on the comic books as information source . . . whereas for the study of middleast, palestine and especially the Jewish tribal history and possibly its relation to Egyptian dynasty between about 1500BC to about 400BC, the Old Testament is one of the few authentic extensive documents that we have today, despite various political coloration may have been introduced by Ezra (the scribe credited with much of the authorship) under Persian tutelage.

Agreed, but the problem is most of those sources are biased and not independent. Also, most of the OT was written long after the events, and contains a lot of hogwash that simply isn't true, like all the Hebrews living in Egypt as Slaves, or King David's Great Kingdom, or the conquest of Canaan by returning Hebrews lead by Joshua in a lightening war. The Word "Authentic" is also a problem, since most of the books in the OT were re-written and edited multiple times, and to serve political purposes. Kings was certainly written by Josiah's scribes and Yahweh Priests to endorse a unified Monarchy under Josiah - with one god, Yahweh.

Reading between the lines about the High Places, and from archaeological evidence of idols, we know that at least until 500BC, most Hebrews were also worshiping Baal and other Canaanite Gods, including El's wife as the main Goddess.

Dan8267 says

I wouldn't argue with that. The founders were politicians who lived in a time where they had to give lip service to Christianity. And some were liberal Christians, but most of the big names including Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were Deists. They believed in a clockmaker god, not the Jesus god. They did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and without that, you're not really a Christian. Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the Bible removing all the supernatural aspects of Christ. That's extremely liberal and subversive by the standards of his day.

You are reciting the late 20th century Christian fundamentalist nonsense in defining what Christianity is. Throughout the ages, many Christians look upon the Bible as allegories instead of word-by-word literally interpretation (i.e. "fundamentalism"). The late 18th century Christians were probably more liberal than today's hard core fundamentalist Christians. Rewriting the Bible stories and "dating the Bible" were common pursuits among learned men of that time. Few people took offense to that.