patrick.net

I thought Islam was a religion of peace? I guess not in Sweden..

FortWayne says

In America too, you can't spank your children or child services will take them away while putting financial penalties on the parents.

I am not sure if you are just unaware of US law on this topic, or if what you call a "spanking" others would call a "savage beating."

Every state in the union allows parents to spank their children. Hell, even in the west coast freak kingdom parents can spank their kids until their butts are red and sore, they just can spank to the point of "serious physical injury", as per WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE SECTION 300-304.7.

Anyway, I am sure that Sweden's anti-spanking policy is to blame for the recent riots by immigrant youth because the native Swedes who are also not spanked have been rioting out-of-control for decades, but that just does not make the news...yeah, that must be it...

I am very encouraged to see fellow liberal people realizing that muslim culture is in many ways incompatible with western liberal values. It is my hope that as time goes by that more liberal people will realize this. It has been my observation that conservatives vote against their economic self interests by supporting republicans while liberals harm their self interest by either sympathizing with the "plight" of muslims and/or underestimating the dangers that their cultural values pose.

dublin hillz says

I am very encouraged to see fellow liberal people realizing that muslim culture is in many ways incompatible with western liberal values. It is my hope that as time goes by that more liberal people will realize this. It has been my observation that conservatives vote against their economic self interests by supporting republicans while liberals harm their self interest by either sympathizing with the "plight" of muslims and/or underestimating the dangers that their cultural values pose.

How is such "Muslim culture" any less compatible than ultra-conservative Christian culture?

How is such "Muslim culture" any less compatible than ultra-conservative Christian culture?
Wow? New Renter, try practicing some religion other than Muslim in the middle east and you'll find out.
FYI, The middle east is 99-100% Muslim.

thunderlips11 says

As you can see, my assertion that immigration was very restrictive - relative to before the Depression and Today, between the 30s and 70s - shows in the numbers.

Your thesis was that restrictive immigration policy correlated to economic prosperity. That is simply not born out by the charts you provided. What kind of economic prosperity existed during the decade of 1931-1940, the decade with the least immigration? They call it the decade of Great Depression for a reason! There wasn't much economic prosperity to speak of during the decade of 1941-1950, the decade with the second lowest immigration, half of which was taken up by the most destructive war in human history.

What the charts do show is that the economic prosperity in the decades of the 1951-60, 1981-90, 1991-2000 all corresponded to the fastest growth in immigration rate (vis the previous decade).

carrieon says

How is such "Muslim culture" any less compatible than ultra-conservative Christian culture?

Wow? New Renter, try practicing some religion other than Muslim in the middle east and you'll find out.

FYI, The middle east is 99-100% Muslim.

Sure if you go move to the bible belt and practice being a gay jew - or worse, an atheist.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Sweden needs POWER BAPTISM. Ministers in fire trucks hosing down the heathens and womping them with a powerful baptism.

I think you can still get that on VHS.

New Renter says

dublin hillz says

I am very encouraged to see fellow liberal people realizing that muslim culture is in many ways incompatible with western liberal values. It is my hope that as time goes by that more liberal people will realize this. It has been my observation that conservatives vote against their economic self interests by supporting republicans while liberals harm their self interest by either sympathizing with the "plight" of muslims and/or underestimating the dangers that their cultural values pose.

How is such "Muslim culture" any less compatible than ultra-conservative Christian culture?

Muslim culture in some ways is consistent with Nietzsche's beliefs about creditor/debtor relationships. The idea being that humans are naturally cruel so if someone is offended they have a natural right to revenge via killings, mutilations, etc to "balance" the creditor/debtor dynamic. In Christinaity, that impulse has been largely repressed and consequently is manifested through the authority figures attempting to torment the non conformists through guilt. The punishment in muslim cultrure is rooted in Freud's theory of "reality anxiety" which is based upon idea that there are things that really need to be feared in the environment such as being placed in tiger's grotto while Christian dynamic reflects "moral anxiety" which is an off-shoot of the reality anxiety yet if you really think about it is irrational. It is for that reason that I consider islam to be much more dangerous that american bible belt.

dublin hillz says

I am very encouraged to see fellow liberal people realizing that muslim culture is in many ways incompatible with western liberal values.

Religion is incompatible with western liberal values and should not be protected or tolerated, and that includes Christianity. Just take a look at the Christian right in this country.

Western liberal values are based on rationality, equality under law for all, elimination of the religion from secular government, and the principle that everyone can do what they please as long as they aren't violating other people's rights.

These values are all incompatible with any religion. Let's go over them one by one.

1. Rationality

All religions are based on superstition that is easily disproved by rational thought and evidence. The very concept of faith, belief without proof or evidence, is fundamentally irrational. A rational government cannot be influenced by the irrationality of religious beliefs and remain rational.

2. Equality under law for all

All common religions are hierarchies in which those who are in power are not questionable by divine doctrine. These "leaders" form a caste system in which the higher levels of the religion are granted privileges and powers that the commoners are not. Furthermore, this entire system lacks any transparency or accountability. Such a system will never tolerate equality under law for all.

Even the few, if any, religions that do not have any kind of priest or leader will still have superstitious practices that reinforce their religious beliefs at the expense of liberty and equality. Laws prohibiting activities that do not infringe upon the rights of others does discriminate against those who enjoy such activities and makes such persons unequal under the law. For example, laws prohibiting homosexual behavior, consumption of alcohol, or use of profanity.

3. Elimination of the religion from secular government

The separation of church and state is simply another way of saying that religion must not affect government policy or daily business. Religions empirically have always sought to influence government as much as possible, and if successful, to take over government all together. It is self-evident that this behavior is incompatible with any secular government.

4. The principle that everyone can do what they please as long as they aren't violating other people's rights

All religions make arbitrary prohibitions on behaviors that have nothing to do with protecting other people's rights. For example, prohibiting homosexual acts, premarital sex, and pretty much anything involving sex.

As you should be able to see by now, it is religion, not any particular religion or family of religions, that is incompatible with western philosophy. Yes some religions are worse than others at a given time period, and some families of religions like Islam have more of these worse religions than other families of religions like Christianity or Judaism, but ultimately that does not matter. It is religion itself that is the problem. The solution isn't to "moderate" the worse religions but to get rid of the problem all together.

The only reason the founding fathers put "freedom of religion" in the Constitution is that a few generations before the American revolution, the Catholics and Anglicans were killing each other like crazy, and they wanted to prevent such religious violence in the new republic. However, this is not a good reason for tolerating religion socially, politically, or financially.

As a society, we should
1. Stop treating religion as something special and unquestionable out of "respect" for it.
2. Stop giving tax breaks or tax-free status to religions.
3. Stop making exceptions to the law for religion. If it's illegal to serve children wine, then that law applies to Communion as well. If it's illegal to wear masks in public, that law applies to Islam as well.
4. Vote out any politician that mentions god, Jesus, or anything religious in his speeches.
5. Vote out any politician that infringes upon our liberties in the name of his religion.
6. Stop watching any channel that promotes bullshit "War on Christmas", "War on Easter" religious propaganda.

I disagree with that Dan. 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. Not all of them, but significant number of them are a problem.

Reality says

What the charts do show is that the economic prosperity in the decades of the 1951-60, 1981-90, 1991-2000 all corresponded to the fastest growth in immigration rate (vis the previous decade).

What economic prosperity? Not for the middle class.

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

Equipped with pricey degrees and weighed down by loans that may take decades to repay, nearly 300,000 Americans graduate from college, only to find themselves working minimum-wage jobs that can barely pay for rent.

College-educated Americans are being thrust into poverty while increasingly finding that their degrees have no value in the work force. About 280,000 Americans with bachelor’s degrees and 37,000 with advanced degrees were working minimum-wage jobs in 2012, the Labor Department reports. The number of college-educated Americans working such jobs has risen 70 percent in the past 10 years. It is also double the number who worked minimum-wage jobs before the Great Recession.

In 2002, college graduates made up 13 percent of all hourly workers. In 2012, they made up 17.8 percent.

Overall, college grads typically earn more than their non-educated counterparts, but this gap is growing smaller as more Americans are finding themselves financially insecure. Nearly 50 percent of college graduates from the class of 2010 are now working jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree, while 38 percent of these graduates are working jobs that don’t even require a high school diploma, according to the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.

Research conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the economy’s decline has largely pushed low-skilled labor workers out of the job market completely, while providing highly educated Americans with minimum wage jobs.

http://rt.com/usa/college-graduates-minimum-wage-174/

We have plenty of Americans who are underutilized in employment:

The Black American Leadership Conference this morning issued an open letter calling on members of Congress to oppose the current immigration proposal, arguing increased competition for low-skill jobs would hurt Americans, particularly black Americans, struggling to find work.

"Given the fact that more than 13% of all blacks are unemployed - nearly double that of the national average, it is our position that each Member of Congress must consider the disastrous effects that Senate Bill 744 would have on low skill workers of all races, while paying particular attention to the potential harm to African Americans," reads the open letter.

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.:

Middle Class Woes since the 80s, despite healthy profits and GDP growth:

Now, what is the evidence that massive, all time record high immigration benefits the Bottom 3/5th of the population, ie the Majority?

Dan8267 says

As a society, we should

1. Stop treating religion as something special and unquestionable out of "respect" for it.

2. Stop giving tax breaks or tax-free status to religions.

3. Stop making exceptions to the law for religion. If it's illegal to serve children wine, then that law applies to Communion as well. If it's illegal to wear masks in public, that law applies to Islam as well.

4. Vote out any politician that mentions god, Jesus, or anything religious in his speeches.

5. Vote out any politician that infringes upon our liberties in the name of his religion.

6. Stop watching any channel that promotes bullshit "War on Christmas", "War on Easter" religious propaganda.

There's a war on Easter now, or is that humorous hyperbole?

Oh Jesus Christ, you're not kidding. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/29/foxs-week-long-war-on-easter/193352

And Right on with #2, like Jefferson suggested. There is no need for religious groups not to pay taxes and at the very least they should be forced to incorporate as non-profit organization that should report expenditures and make them public. At the least they should pay full property taxes.

Enough Oilsheens, Hinns, and Warrens living in mansions and getting it all tax free.

FortWayne says

I disagree with that Dan. 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. Not all of them, but significant number of them are a problem.

Exactly how is Islamic religious intrusion different from Christian religious intrusion? Both families of religions are bad for making laws. None of the Christian or Islamic religions should be the basis of policy. Yet all those religions try to get government to impose their wills onto other people including those who are not members of their religion.

So, blue laws are OK, but Sharia Laws aren't? They're the same thing. Bad laws based on the crappy morality of Iron Age desert dwellers. It's OK to hang the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, but don't install any mop sinks lest they be mistaken for Islamic foot showers. If we don't allow a nativity scene on public property like city hall, it's a War on Christmas. But if we allow an Islamic religious display on city hall, it's Sharia intrusion?

Everything that conservative Christians complain about Islam interfering with the state is exactly what we atheists and secularists have complained about Christianity interfering with the state. It seems like Christians have no problem with the violation of separation of church and state until it was somebody else's religion that was doing the violating.

It's damn hard for me to have sympathy for the mid-West's fear of Sharia Law when those bastards have been advocating the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law for the past two hundred years. Part of me wishes that those Christians are forced to live under an Islamic theocracy for a few decades so that they finally can understand why we secular Americans don't want to live under a Christian theocracy.

By the way, the only reason American and Western Christianity isn't as bad as Middle East Islam today is that secularists, rationalists, and atheists like me have dragged Western Civilization out of the Dark Ages despite violent resistance from the Christian mainstream. And we're still dragging Christian asses into the modern, enlightened age. Just look at the whole marriage equality debate.

thunderlips11 says

There's a war on Easter now, or is that humorous hyperbole?

Oh Jesus Christ, you're not kidding. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/29/foxs-week-long-war-on-easter/193352

Most things one hears about the right are both utterly ridiculous and completely true.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Liberals would have crucified Jesus and then hid the good news of the salvation!

Crucifixion and liberalism are mutually exclusive

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

There's a war on Easter now, or is that humorous hyperbole?

Oh Jesus Christ, you're not kidding. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/29/foxs-week-long-war-on-easter/193352

Most things one hears about the right are both utterly ridiculous and completely true.

It may be Hyperbole, but it's utterly ridiculous to demand from institutions that they abolish the celebration of traditional holidays, not put up x-mas trees or don't have the baby jesus crib play for kids just because somebody could feel offended as long as these activities are not a mandated part of he curriculum. These are optional activities and anybody is free to choose to join them or go party elsewhere instead.

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

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

What the charts do show is that the economic prosperity in the decades of the 1951-60, 1981-90, 1991-2000 all corresponded to the fastest growth in immigration rate (vis the previous decade).

What economic prosperity? Not for the middle class.

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.

Now to answer your current question: the decade of 1951-60 saw very real economic prosperity, and it was a period of rapidly growing immigration rate compared to the previous decade. Even your own chart shows that the decade of 1951-60 saw the median income growth outpaced per capita GDP growth.

Median income growth rate start to fall behind per capita GDP growth rate after the early 1970's (as clearly shown in your chart) for a very simple reason: that's when the US Dollar became pure fiat! The money manipulators benefit their own friends the most, and the middle class are not in the circle. The redistributive effect from the middle class to the rich by the fiat money system is especially pronounced during economic down turns. That's why even in your own chart, the mid-80's and mid-90's periods of economic prosperity actually the saw the median income growth rate (1st order derivative of the chart line) more or less keeping pace with the per capita GDP growth. It's during the down turns when the median income falls way behind the per capita GDP . . . thanks to central bank bailouts and government spending handouts to the rich!

mell says

It may be Hyperbole, but it's utterly ridiculous to demand from institutions that they abolish the celebration of traditional holidays, not put up x-mas trees or don't have the baby jesus crib play for kids just because somebody could feel offended as long as these activities are not a mandated part of he curriculum. These are optional activities and anybody is free to choose to join them or go party elsewhere instead.

No one has ever demanded that individual citizens, churches, or non-governmental institutions abolish the celebration of religious holidays or not display their religious symbols, most of which, by the way, are pagan.

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.

If city hall went from this

to this

I bet you'd be up in arms.

Oh, and how tolerant would you be if the public schools had optional, not mandatory, Satanic rituals and witchcraft clubs? You know, ones in which anybody is free to choose to join them or go party elsewhere instead.

Whenever you want to know if something Christian is acceptable in a situation, simply replace "Christian" with "Satanic". The answer is the same. If it's not OK for Satan worshipers, it's not OK for Jesus worshipers. That's equal religious freedom.

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.