goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: slobber on August 14, 2012, 06:40:21 AM
-
I have not done any fact finding, but if this is true, it is a little confusing to me...
http://stg.do/Iwpc
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
He never said it was after the Constitution, so which statement isn't valid? (I swear I am not trying to be contrary. I am just curious how you interpreted this.)
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
But they sometimes met in the Capitol building for church! That means the government should be run on their religious ideals. Totally without question.
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
He never said it was after the Constitution, so which statement isn't valid? (I swear I am not trying to be contrary. I am just curious how you interpreted this.)
Because our government is created by the Constitution. So crap done before it is governed by the Articles
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
He never said it was after the Constitution, so which statement isn't valid? (I swear I am not trying to be contrary. I am just curious how you interpreted this.)
What I was getting at is that no one should give a crap what the congress of 1782 said about the bible they printed and its role in government run schools. They completely changed the form of government since then.
Although, I also don't think anyone should give a crap about what the congress of 1793 said about bibles in schools either.
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
But they sometimes met in the Capitol building for church! That means the government should be run on their religious ideals. Totally without question.
I don't know that the government should be run on their religious ideals. But maybe the Separation of Church and state wasn't about banning a prayer at commencement? (Again, I am trying to be completely serious and non-smart assy (I should stop being such a smart ass so I don't have to type this when I am being serious.))
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
But they sometimes met in the Capitol building for church! That means the government should be run on their religious ideals. Totally without question.
I don't know that the government should be run on their religious ideals. But maybe the Separation of Church and state wasn't about banning a prayer at commencement? (Again, I am trying to be completely serious and non-smart assy (I should stop being such a smart ass so I don't have to type this when I am being serious.))
Don't give a crap if some podunksville school want to sit around and pray that Johnny Junior College has a good graduation and that it rains. Do give a crap that these people think our Government is founded on some judeo Christian belief system and they can cook up a bunch of paintings that tells everyone that the "Gov shall make no law to establish a religion" doesn't mean just that.
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
He never said it was after the Constitution, so which statement isn't valid? (I swear I am not trying to be contrary. I am just curious how you interpreted this.)
What I was getting at is that no one should give a crap what the congress of 1782 said about the bible they printed and its role in government run schools. They completely changed the form of government since then.
Although, I also don't think anyone should give a crap about what the congress of 1793 said about bibles in schools either.
But I often see people that don't want bibles in schools saying things like, "When they wrote that, they didn't want anything related to the government interfering with religion, just like they didn't want religion interfering with the government." Yet, if what the guy claims in the video is true, they certainly had religious elements on going in the government. Were they going against what they intended to do in the Constitution?
-
1782 when that Bible was printed was pre-Constitution, so I guess that statement has about as much validity as the Articles of Confederation.
But they sometimes met in the Capitol building for church! That means the government should be run on their religious ideals. Totally without question.
I don't know that the government should be run on their religious ideals. But maybe the Separation of Church and state wasn't about banning a prayer at commencement? (Again, I am trying to be completely serious and non-smart assy (I should stop being such a smart ass so I don't have to type this when I am being serious.))
I agree with that. As an atheist I don't mind not having prayers at commencement though. I managed to get through saying "under God" in the pledge of allegiance at school for years though. I understand the arguments against having those sorts of things, but it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
-
Another serious question, why do these people need to be led in some loud, public prayer? Can't they bow their heads, say a prayer with some quiet dignity and move on? No one is stopping that. No one has ever stopped that.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
-
I have not done any fact finding, but if this is true, it is a little confusing to me...
http://stg.do/Iwpc
This was addressed on a radio program I heard Friday. They completely destroyed this guy's claims in that vid. They had a history proff form some religious private collage doing the destroying.
They guy said that Congress ok'ed the use of their staff clergy to proof the print and that was all. They didn't commission it or anything.
The same proff when in on this guy hard on the stuff he is claiming about Jefferson too.
If the proff is to be believed, it sounds like this guy is just standing up and spouting off a bunch of made up crap and because many in his crowd want to believe it, it becomes reality.
Proff d00d was saying how he is basically re-writing history with a heavy hand on the edit button.
-
I have not done any fact finding, but if this is true, it is a little confusing to me...
http://stg.do/Iwpc
This was addressed on a radio program I heard Friday. They completely destroyed this guy's claims in that vid. They had a history proff form some religious private collage doing the destroying.
They guy said that Congress ok'ed the use of their staff clergy to proof the print and that was all. They didn't commission it or anything.
The same proff when in on this guy hard on the stuff he is claiming about Jefferson too.
If the proff is to be believed, it sounds like this guy is just standing up and spouting off a bunch of made up crap and because many in his crowd want to believe it, it becomes reality.
Proff d00d was saying how he is basically re-writing history with a heavy hand on the edit button.
If he had to heavily edit what flimsy evidence he did produce then he is kind of screwed.
-
If the proff is to be believed, it sounds like this guy is just standing up and spouting off a bunch of made up crap and because many in his crowd want to believe it, it becomes reality.
Sounds like religion.
-
If the proff is to be believed, it sounds like this guy is just standing up and spouting off a bunch of made up crap and because many in his crowd want to believe it, it becomes reality.
Sounds like religion.
:horrorsurprise:
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
-
What's amazing is it is obvs working. I mean, the guy owns some construction company in TX but is being hired by all kinds of R's to consult with them and is sought after by politicians for his endorsement.
There is a movement in our country toward this type of crap.
I saw a study on CNN a month ago that actually said less people are believing science, where it conflict with religion, now vs 10 yrs ago. That is just insane to me.
-
pffffffffffft
Publisher Thomas Nelson has withdrawn 'The Jefferson Lies" after a lengthy review found the author, David Barton, had included "historical details that were not adequately supported," said Brian Hampton, a senior vice president and publisher for Thomas Nelson.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/bartons-jefferson-lies-book-yanked/
-
pffffffffffft
Publisher Thomas Nelson has withdrawn 'The Jefferson Lies" after a lengthy review found the author, David Barton, had included "historical details that were not adequately supported," said Brian Hampton, a senior vice president and publisher for Thomas Nelson.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/bartons-jefferson-lies-book-yanked/
I love how, even there, they call them historical details, rather than lies, and they reference the fact that they weren't adequately supported, other than they were made up.
Also, the religious nuts that believe his crap are just going to say that this is another example of how our country is attacking religion and those with faith. They will go on to say how this is a conspiracy by the left to discredit believers and God's role in our country.
He will find another publisher and the crap will sell like hotcakes.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
-
hi guys, just wanted to pop in on this thread as I've had past run-in's with David Barton in TX. The guy is a complete fraud. He props his pseudo-history up on a broken leg of religion and statements that make people of faith afraid to question the claims for fear of being ostricized by their church/faith group/etc. His Wallbuilders, which is nothing more than religious propaganda, is on the same level as those morons that attempted to paint vaccine's as contra beneficial for young children. His "facts" are hilariously destroyed time and time again, but like i said before those of faith are either ignorant or afraid to stand up to them. He is not a scholar of histroy and his background in education is entrenched in the religous variety of education. I mean, good grief there's a reason he's a poster boy for the 700 Club. He is dangerous. I hate him.
Carry on.
-
That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...
"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there. :cheers: "
But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.
Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.
-
I think this fraud getting called a fraud is not deteriorating
-
This guy is full of crap.
As far as separation of c&s...
Everybody can vote how they want. If people feel they should vote a certain way based on religious belief, that is completely acceptable. In that sense, religion will never be completely separated from the government. But when guys like this use lies to try to convince people that the government actually should support a certain religion, that needs to be stopped. Period. The government should never tell people what to believe. The government should allow everybody the equal opportunity to practice their religion freely.
I had a high school government teacher tell me one time "If people want have prayer in school I'm completely fine with that. I only have one condition: I want to write the prayers. And I'm Hindu."
-
I completely support that con man's right to separate those huge rubes from their cash though.
-
That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...
"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there. :cheers: "
But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.
Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.
That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...
"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there. :cheers: "
But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.
Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.
Other than john doug's "immoral shithole" comment, this thread has been pretty civil. But I guess complaining about the direction or tone of the thread is a great way to avoid the fact that the clown in your original post is a liar.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
-
Link?
-
I completely support that con man's right to separate those huge rubes from their cash though.
Yeah. This is the free market at work. Those dummies want someone to give them a line of bull and this guy is just supplying that demand.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
Welp, better get all the non believers out of govt so that we(the tax payers) won't be ripped off anymore. Honest Congress here we come.
-
Separation of rube and cash.
-
That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...
"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there. :cheers: "
But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.
Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.
That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...
"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there. :cheers: "
But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.
Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.
Other than john doug's "immoral shithole" comment, this thread has been pretty civil. But I guess complaining about the direction or tone of the thread is a great way to avoid the fact that the clown in your original post is a liar.
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
-
Dob, I think there should be a separation.
:gocho:
-
That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...
"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there. :cheers: "
But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.
Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.
That is why this is the DOME... I was getting ready to post the following, but then I got called away for actual work stuff...
"Hey guys, thanks for the civility! Good discussion, I'll leave it there. :cheers: "
But by the time I came back to post it, things had deteriorated.
Edit: This post was not intended as a response to MeatSauce, but to the direction of the thread in general.
Other than john doug's "immoral shithole" comment, this thread has been pretty civil. But I guess complaining about the direction or tone of the thread is a great way to avoid the fact that the clown in your original post is a liar.
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Exactly.
-
Dob, I think there should be a separation.
:gocho:
Thank you for that very civil answer! ;)
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
lol that any of that has to do with religion instead of the immense power that corporations (republicans best friends) have over the government.
-
Dob, I think there should be a separation.
:gocho:
Ditto, even if that guy isnt a huge liar.
-
Outside income in 2010:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=I&year=2010
lol at the guy who reported $16 as his own outside income. I guess we know that's he's trying to be completely honest though. :lol:
-
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.
-
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.
Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.
-
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.
Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.
Does it matter what the founding fathers were thinking though?
I mean, the best part of the constitution is that it can be changed. Not just haphazardly, but with careful thought and deliberation. If we can improve on what the constitution said, should we do that? Is it possible that we even have a responsibility to do that? What the founding fathers were thinking might be important to the discussion, but the times have changed. Can we make something better now?
-
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of (http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of)
The NPR story I referenced earlier.
-
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.
Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.
I would advise you to go ahead and assume that none of it's true at worst and it is an extreme stretch of the truth designed to separate money from rubes at best.
Then revisit your position.
-
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.
Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.
Does it matter what the founding fathers were thinking though?
I mean, the best part of the constitution is that it can be changed. Not just haphazardly, but with careful thought and deliberation. If we can improve on what the constitution said, should we do that? Is it possible that we even have a responsibility to do that? What the founding fathers were thinking might be important to the discussion, but the times have changed. Can we make something better now?
First you basically say it doesn't matter what they were thinking, and then you say what they were thinking might be important.
I wasn't arguing against changing the constitution. I have just heard a lot of people say that the founding fathers didn't want religion in government and that is what they meant when they talked about church and state.
-
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.
Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.
I would advise you to go ahead and assume that none of it's true at worst and it is an extreme stretch of the truth designed to separate money from rubes at best.
Then revisit your position.
Okay. Thank you for the discussion.
-
I guess I was wanting to talk more about the Separation of Church and State. If he is a liar, then he will have to answer to his maker for that. :horrorsurprise:
Maybe I'm not sure why you posted the video of that liar ripping off people. I thought you were using the liar as an argument that church and state should not be separate.
Yes, I was using his argument and I <basically> said upfront that I didn't know if he was full of it or not, but if any of what he said was true, then it makes a person wonder what the founding fathers and our early politicians were thinking when they talked about sep. of church and state.
Does it matter what the founding fathers were thinking though?
I mean, the best part of the constitution is that it can be changed. Not just haphazardly, but with careful thought and deliberation. If we can improve on what the constitution said, should we do that? Is it possible that we even have a responsibility to do that? What the founding fathers were thinking might be important to the discussion, but the times have changed. Can we make something better now?
First you basically say it doesn't matter what they were thinking, and then you say what they were thinking might be important.
I wasn't arguing against changing the constitution. I have just heard a lot of people say that the founding fathers didn't want religion in government and that is what they meant when they talked about church and state.
I'm asking if it really is that important. There are some that would say it is all-important. I'm not really sure it is. Thus why I say it might be important. I can see how you would think I was saying two different things.
I have also heard a lot of people say that what the founding fathers meant was that they didn't want religion in government. I'm not exactly an expert on that.
One thing I do know is that Samuel Adams brewed his own beer. I think we can all agree and be happy about that. :drink:
-
how does everyone feel about the separation of mosque and state? do mosques have a role in government? should they be tax havens?
-
Samuel Adams! :drink: We can all agree! Even in the DOME.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
Link?
:tappingfootguy:
as an atheist I don't believe I'm an immoral shithole. I have never committed a crime, and don't plan on committing any crimes. But how long can I remain this way with out fearing retribution or judgement :ohno: ?
:flush:
-
I have never committed a crime.
Something tells me this is a lie.
-
how does everyone feel about the separation of mosque and state? do mosques have a role in government? should they be tax havens?
Shouldn't have role in govt. Should have same rights as the baptist church at the edge of my neighborhood that keeps sending guys to my door asking me if I would attend their church and make me lie and tell them I am a Methodist just so they will take no for an answer and not try to further press me into attending their services because upon hearing my lie they then quickly say god bless and leave.
-
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
And many of them get elected because of their religious belief (or show of belief).
the religious should support separation, governmental promotion of religion "tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it."
those words from jefferson's virginia statute for religious freedom disagree with your moral deterioration contention...
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/statute.htm (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/statute.htm)
-
So Ging just busted into this temple and started throwing out money changers....or something.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
You're looking at it from the wrong side. Religious people are never bad people is the take home. Mutually exclusive. They don't molest kids or start unjustified wars or torture folks and such. The world is whatever the opposite of an immoral shithole is when they're running the show. A righteous cake dome?
-
I have never committed a crime.
Something tells me this is a lie.
not a real crime. I think you get my point.
Unless, my moral ineptitude led me to break a few minor minor laws a couple times :ohno:
-
I have never committed a crime.
Something tells me this is a lie.
not a real crime. I think you get my point.
Unless, my moral ineptitude led me to break a few minor minor laws a couple times :ohno:
Crime doesn't pay, pike.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.picgifs.com%2Fsmileys%2Fsmileys-and-emoticons%2Fpolice%2Fsmileys-police-742969.gif&hash=33cb317ec0d1617ddbaf67aba844313f17d5fe34)
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
Link?
:tappingfootguy:
as an atheist I don't believe I'm an immoral shithole. I have never committed a crime, and don't plan on committing any crimes. But how long can I remain this way with out fearing retribution or judgement :ohno: ?
:flush:
I don't believe you will always be an atheist. Also, I said the world will become a shithole, not everyone in it.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
You're looking at it from the wrong side. Religious people are never bad people is the take home. Mutually exclusive. They don't molest kids or start unjustified wars or torture folks and such. The world is whatever the opposite of an immoral shithole is when they're running the show. A righteous cake dome?
Yeah, I am pretty sure that is the way to look at it. :dubious:
-
Also, I said the world will become a shithole, not everyone in it.
what kind of shithole do you envision an america without religion becoming? i think a shithole would be some sort of violence centered society. europe has grown apart(up) from religion and now they don't have 30 year long wars and quite as much genocide. to me, that is the world becoming a whole lot less shitty.
-
how does everyone feel about the separation of mosque and state? do mosques have a role in government? should they be tax havens?
They are.
-
God isn't real, he was invented as a crutch for humans uncomfortable with their own mortality. That said, people should vote according to their beliefs, and the government shouldn't legislate to promote any religion over another.
Sent from my GT-S5830M using Tapatalk 2
-
Also, I said the world will become a shithole, not everyone in it.
what kind of shithole do you envision an america without religion becoming? i think a shithole would be some sort of violence centered society. europe has grown apart(up) from religion and now they don't have 30 year long wars and quite as much genocide. to me, that is the world becoming a whole lot less shitty.
Preach brother
Sent from my GT-S5830M using Tapatalk 2
-
did you guys see this in the link I posted earlier:
Rewriting Texas Textbooks
Nowhere is that more visible than in the Texas textbook controversy. In 2010, the Texas Board of Education voted to rewrite the history textbooks to make them more conservative and Christian-friendly. One of the advisers was David Barton.
Barton later said on the cable talk show Chapter and Verse that it would take another 16 or 18 years before kids go through the entire curriculum, "then another 10 years after that before those kids get elected to office and start doing things. So we're talking 30 years from now. But, it's in the pipe coming down."
Asked about this 30-year plan, Barton says of course he wants to shape future leaders, any educator does. But he says he doesn't see himself as a particularly influential person.
"I'm going to be an active citizen and be involved and do everything I can to help move these principles forward," he says.
I mean, holy crap. Can you imagine if any religion other than Christianity did this in any of our states? There would be a civil war and a bunch of country songs written. What is the best is that many conservatives complain about how liberal the schools are and how they are indoctrinating kids against God and toward socialism. Pfft.
-
To say there would be morality without religion is pretty absurd in my opinion. That isn't to argue that there is or isn't a god(s). It is only to argue that religion itself is/was necessary for the advancement of human kind and of its moral disposition.
Without religions of all kinds, which for the most part have very similar beliefs on a majority of right and wrong topics, these frameworks of right and wrong never would have become widespread. Of course this came at a price as human nature, pride, etc. would eventually lead to war, etc. when two groups of people would eventually encounter each other. That isn't to say that religion is to blame for these wars (though in some cases it certainly was/ is a driving force). Human beings and animals alike have had different groups warring with each other since the beginning of time.
I'm also not arguing here that there won't come a time when (and maybe it has already arrived) human beings "outgrow" religion. When we as a species no longer need religion to remain moral.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
Link?
:tappingfootguy:
as an atheist I don't believe I'm an immoral shithole. I have never committed a crime, and don't plan on committing any crimes. But how long can I remain this way with out fearing retribution or judgement :ohno: ?
:flush:
I don't believe you will always be an atheist. Also, I said the world will become a shithole, not everyone in it.
I've only been an atheist for a couple years. Even before then I wasn't very religious, at all. My parents didn't indoctrinate me well enough I guess. But I'm curious as to when I'll see the light again?
-
To say there would be morality without religion is pretty absurd in my opinion. That isn't to argue that there is or isn't a god(s). It is only to argue that religion itself is/was necessary for the advancement of human kind and of its moral disposition.
Without religions of all kinds, which for the most part have very similar beliefs on a majority of right and wrong topics, these frameworks of right and wrong never would have become widespread. Of course this came at a price as human nature, pride, etc. would eventually lead to war, etc. when two groups of people would eventually encounter each other. That isn't to say that religion is to blame for these wars (though in some cases it certainly was/ is a driving force). Human beings and animals alike have had different groups warring with each other since the beginning of time.
I'm also not arguing here that there won't come a time when (and maybe it has already arrived) human beings "outgrow" religion. When we as a species no longer need religion to remain moral.
I don't know about this. People seem to have a pretty solid sense of right and wrong before religion comes along. People feel icky about murdering until they are sanctioned by their gods to do so.
Even in the bible, before God told anyone how to party, Abraham felt pretty icky having to murder his son but was about to go through with it anyway because god said he had to. (close call, lol god!)
-
To say there would be morality without religion is pretty absurd in my opinion. That isn't to argue that there is or isn't a god(s). It is only to argue that religion itself is/was necessary for the advancement of human kind and of its moral disposition.
Without religions of all kinds, which for the most part have very similar beliefs on a majority of right and wrong topics, these frameworks of right and wrong never would have become widespread. Of course this came at a price as human nature, pride, etc. would eventually lead to war, etc. when two groups of people would eventually encounter each other. That isn't to say that religion is to blame for these wars (though in some cases it certainly was/ is a driving force). Human beings and animals alike have had different groups warring with each other since the beginning of time.
I'm also not arguing here that there won't come a time when (and maybe it has already arrived) human beings "outgrow" religion. When we as a species no longer need religion to remain moral.
Early man lived in small groups. If you boned your neighbor's wife, he killed you. If you stole your neighbor's flint blade, he killed you. If you could relieve someone's suffering, they aided you in return. It has been ingrained by evolution to not be an bad person. Religion shaped morality and made it black and white, but it didn't invent it.
And religion is to blame for the overwhelming majority of history's wars. I mean, would there have been public support for our current wars without 19 religious fundamentalists destroying the WTC?
-
To say there would be morality without religion is pretty absurd in my opinion. That isn't to argue that there is or isn't a god(s). It is only to argue that religion itself is/was necessary for the advancement of human kind and of its moral disposition.
Without religions of all kinds, which for the most part have very similar beliefs on a majority of right and wrong topics, these frameworks of right and wrong never would have become widespread. Of course this came at a price as human nature, pride, etc. would eventually lead to war, etc. when two groups of people would eventually encounter each other. That isn't to say that religion is to blame for these wars (though in some cases it certainly was/ is a driving force). Human beings and animals alike have had different groups warring with each other since the beginning of time.
I'm also not arguing here that there won't come a time when (and maybe it has already arrived) human beings "outgrow" religion. When we as a species no longer need religion to remain moral.
Early man lived in small groups. If you boned your neighbor's wife, he killed you. If you stole your neighbor's flint blade, he killed you. If you could relieve someone's suffering, they aided you in return. It has been ingrained by evolution to not be an bad person. Religion shaped morality and made it black and white, but it didn't invent it.
And religion is to blame for the overwhelming majority of history's wars. I mean, would there have been public support for our current wars without 19 religious fundamentalists destroying the WTC?
I think it's unfair to say that religion is to blame for even a slight majority of history's wars. Greed is to blame for all of them, and religion is just used as a vehicle to motivate the masses. Without religion, a different, less convenient vehicle would be found.
-
To say there would be morality without religion is pretty absurd in my opinion. That isn't to argue that there is or isn't a god(s). It is only to argue that religion itself is/was necessary for the advancement of human kind and of its moral disposition.
Without religions of all kinds, which for the most part have very similar beliefs on a majority of right and wrong topics, these frameworks of right and wrong never would have become widespread. Of course this came at a price as human nature, pride, etc. would eventually lead to war, etc. when two groups of people would eventually encounter each other. That isn't to say that religion is to blame for these wars (though in some cases it certainly was/ is a driving force). Human beings and animals alike have had different groups warring with each other since the beginning of time.
I'm also not arguing here that there won't come a time when (and maybe it has already arrived) human beings "outgrow" religion. When we as a species no longer need religion to remain moral.
Early man lived in small groups. If you boned your neighbor's wife, he killed you. If you stole your neighbor's flint blade, he killed you. If you could relieve someone's suffering, they aided you in return. It has been ingrained by evolution to not be an bad person. Religion shaped morality and made it black and white, but it didn't invent it.
And religion is to blame for the overwhelming majority of history's wars. I mean, would there have been public support for our current wars without 19 religious fundamentalists destroying the WTC?
I think it's unfair to say that religion is to blame for even a slight majority of history's wars. Greed is to blame for all of them, and religion is just used as a vehicle to motivate the masses. Without religion, a different, less convenient vehicle would be found.
One as effective? I doubt it.
-
To say there would be morality without religion is pretty absurd in my opinion. That isn't to argue that there is or isn't a god(s). It is only to argue that religion itself is/was necessary for the advancement of human kind and of its moral disposition.
Without religions of all kinds, which for the most part have very similar beliefs on a majority of right and wrong topics, these frameworks of right and wrong never would have become widespread. Of course this came at a price as human nature, pride, etc. would eventually lead to war, etc. when two groups of people would eventually encounter each other. That isn't to say that religion is to blame for these wars (though in some cases it certainly was/ is a driving force). Human beings and animals alike have had different groups warring with each other since the beginning of time.
I'm also not arguing here that there won't come a time when (and maybe it has already arrived) human beings "outgrow" religion. When we as a species no longer need religion to remain moral.
Early man lived in small groups. If you boned your neighbor's wife, he killed you. If you stole your neighbor's flint blade, he killed you. If you could relieve someone's suffering, they aided you in return. It has been ingrained by evolution to not be an bad person. Religion shaped morality and made it black and white, but it didn't invent it.
And religion is to blame for the overwhelming majority of history's wars. I mean, would there have been public support for our current wars without 19 religious fundamentalists destroying the WTC?
I think it's unfair to say that religion is to blame for even a slight majority of history's wars. Greed is to blame for all of them, and religion is just used as a vehicle to motivate the masses. Without religion, a different, less convenient vehicle would be found.
The purported reason for going to war is as blameworthy as the actual one.
Sorry for ruining your thread, dobber.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
Yep, atheists are all immoral assholes. Religion created morality.
Without fear of retribution and judgement, morals slowly deteriorate. I think people in general want to be good, but there is too much money to be had in government. These days, they all leave federal office much wealthier than when the went in.
Link?
:tappingfootguy:
as an atheist I don't believe I'm an immoral shithole. I have never committed a crime, and don't plan on committing any crimes. But how long can I remain this way with out fearing retribution or judgement :ohno: ?
:flush:
I don't believe you will always be an atheist. Also, I said the world will become a shithole, not everyone in it.
I've only been an atheist for a couple years. Even before then I wasn't very religious, at all. My parents didn't indoctrinate me well enough I guess. But I'm curious as to when I'll see the light again?
I think most people go through this stage. I did. I'm no zealot and don't go to church, but I do believe. Sometimes it takes a really trying time to realize there has to be more to life. And who knows, Jesus may have been an alien. That wild haired guy on Ancient Aliens is pretty convincing.
-
Let's stick to the con-man who is trying to convince everyone that the founding father's were super into his God and his Jesus.
-
To say there would be morality without religion is pretty absurd in my opinion. That isn't to argue that there is or isn't a god(s). It is only to argue that religion itself is/was necessary for the advancement of human kind and of its moral disposition.
Without religions of all kinds, which for the most part have very similar beliefs on a majority of right and wrong topics, these frameworks of right and wrong never would have become widespread. Of course this came at a price as human nature, pride, etc. would eventually lead to war, etc. when two groups of people would eventually encounter each other. That isn't to say that religion is to blame for these wars (though in some cases it certainly was/ is a driving force). Human beings and animals alike have had different groups warring with each other since the beginning of time.
I'm also not arguing here that there won't come a time when (and maybe it has already arrived) human beings "outgrow" religion. When we as a species no longer need religion to remain moral.
Early man lived in small groups. If you boned your neighbor's wife, he killed you. If you stole your neighbor's flint blade, he killed you. If you could relieve someone's suffering, they aided you in return. It has been ingrained by evolution to not be an bad person. Religion shaped morality and made it black and white, but it didn't invent it.
And religion is to blame for the overwhelming majority of history's wars. I mean, would there have been public support for our current wars without 19 religious fundamentalists destroying the WTC?
I think it's unfair to say that religion is to blame for even a slight majority of history's wars. Greed is to blame for all of them, and religion is just used as a vehicle to motivate the masses. Without religion, a different, less convenient vehicle would be found.
One as effective? I doubt it.
Absolutely. Race, nationality, etc. would all be equally effective. Mankind is very violent by nature.
-
Let's stick to the con-man who is trying to convince everyone that the founding father's were super into his God and his Jesus.
yeah, dobbs got off pretty easy. EVEN IF HE'S A LITTLE BIT RIGHT IT MAKES YOU WONDER AMIRITE???????
-
Let's stick to the con-man who is trying to convince everyone that the founding father's were super into his God and his Jesus.
yeah, dobbs got off pretty easy. EVEN IF HE'S A LITTLE BIT RIGHT IT MAKES YOU WONDER AMIRITE???????
A little bit
-
Barton is wrong. Unfortunately, it's easy to manipulate the majority of Evangelicals in this country. Philip Jenkins(an evangelical) wrote a book a few years back called The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (that it has no mind), and Barton's BS is another example. Most of the founding fathers were deists. They believed in a clockmaker God who set the universe in motion and then watched everything unfold without manipulating history whatsoever. Which is clearly the opposite of the God-Man Savior of Christianity.. For example, Jefferson created his own bible by stripping the new testament of all spiritual/supernatural content.
Did anyone else take any Dr. Linder classes? He stressed that a civil religion has always subsisted in American life. It is at times similar to and sometimes informed by Judeo-Christian beliefs but it is certainly not any sort of Christian denomination. Linder said there must be a separation of church and state, but that religion and politics are impossible to separate. Like 8manpick said, the government shouldn't sanction any religious (regardless of religion) public prayer in schools, etc.. But individuals should have the right to bow their head if they choose.
-
As a Christian, I think it is ridiculous for anyone to say this country should not have state and church separated. Atheists, I'm sorry that anyone would think you are immoral. In my opinion, religion and morality are not as correlated as everyone seems to think. It is unfair to assume so. But on that same note, to think that every Christian is dumb is pretty offensive too. It seems that as soon as I tell an atheist I'm a Christian, my opinion is no longer valid because they assume I have the IQ of someone in the middle ages. I know that Christians are not represented well, but a lot of that has to do with how the media portrays us. I just ask that you give us a fair chance in these types of debates.
-
As a Christian, I think it is ridiculous for anyone to say this country should not have state and church separated. Atheists, I'm sorry that anyone would think you are immoral. In my opinion, religion and morality are not as correlated as everyone seems to think. It is unfair to assume so. But on that same note, to think that every Christian is dumb is pretty offensive too. It seems that as soon as I tell an atheist I'm a Christian, my opinion is no longer valid because they assume I have the IQ of someone in the middle ages. I know that Christians are not represented well, but a lot of that has to do with how the media portrays us. I just ask that you guys us a fair chance in these types of debates.
This type of reasonable discussion has no place here :dubious:
-
But on that same note, to think that every Christian is dumb is pretty offensive too. It seems that as soon as I tell an atheist I'm a Christian, my opinion is no longer valid because they assume I have the IQ of someone in the middle ages. I know that Christians are not represented well, but a lot of that has to do with how the media portrays us. I just ask that you guys us a fair chance in these types of debates.
I don't think that, I think there are lots of smart Christians. I just think they are wrong in this instance. This is somewhat easier to convey in person than in the d-k dome, but it's hard to explain that you think the other person is wrong without implying that they are stupid, or at least having the other person think that you were trying to.
-
But on that same note, to think that every Christian is dumb is pretty offensive too. It seems that as soon as I tell an atheist I'm a Christian, my opinion is no longer valid because they assume I have the IQ of someone in the middle ages. I know that Christians are not represented well, but a lot of that has to do with how the media portrays us. I just ask that you guys us a fair chance in these types of debates.
I don't think that, I think there are lots of smart Christians. I just think they are wrong in this instance. This is somewhat easier to convey in person than in the d-k dome, but it's hard to explain that you think the other person is wrong without implying that they are stupid, or at least having the other person think that you were trying to.
sometimes i purposely tell people with whom i disagree that they are stupid because it takes less effort than a detailed argument does and a good dose of PI still has the potential to change minds. the d-k dome brings out the worst in a man.
-
http://chronicle.com/article/Does-Religion-Really-Poison/133457/
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
We don't need a bunch of atheists. We just need to quit basing laws off of personal beliefs and instead on actual research and hard facts that prove something is a public threat. Like the banning of gay marriage, weed, strip clubs in Missouri, etc.
-
But on that same note, to think that every Christian is dumb is pretty offensive too. It seems that as soon as I tell an atheist I'm a Christian, my opinion is no longer valid because they assume I have the IQ of someone in the middle ages. I know that Christians are not represented well, but a lot of that has to do with how the media portrays us. I just ask that you guys us a fair chance in these types of debates.
I don't think that, I think there are lots of smart Christians. I just think they are wrong in this instance. This is somewhat easier to convey in person than in the d-k dome, but it's hard to explain that you think the other person is wrong without implying that they are stupid, or at least having the other person think that you were trying to.
I agree. There are a lot of very, very smart and open minded Christians (especially Ron Paul, a fundy of whom I've read 2 books and studied and stuff). One problem with Christianity is that most of them are perfectly OK with an endless occupation of middle eastern countries as long as brown Muslim people are being bombed and hundreds of thousands end up fleeing as refugees. They try and justify it because of "Sharia Law is taking over America....Muslims hate the US!! ( :runaway:)" which of course is a bull crap talking point proliferated by MSM lunatics like Bill O'reilly, Hannity, and Rush. They're so closed minded that they won't even read back to the 1953 coup when our relations with Iran went sour, and it was our fault. They'd rather just nuke the crap out of Tehran and lol as oil prices drop because they think that Muslims are impeding the largest religion in the world from growing even more.
I don't think this makes Christians stupid. I have some very good friends and family that are perfectly fine with this and they are humble, respectable Christians as well. I also realize many Christians don't believe in this idiocy, but the ones that do I'm not sure how they justify it. I have some idea but that's for another thread.
-
But on that same note, to think that every Christian is dumb is pretty offensive too. It seems that as soon as I tell an atheist I'm a Christian, my opinion is no longer valid because they assume I have the IQ of someone in the middle ages. I know that Christians are not represented well, but a lot of that has to do with how the media portrays us. I just ask that you guys us a fair chance in these types of debates.
I don't think that, I think there are lots of smart Christians. I just think they are wrong in this instance. This is somewhat easier to convey in person than in the d-k dome, but it's hard to explain that you think the other person is wrong without implying that they are stupid, or at least having the other person think that you were trying to.
I agree. There are a lot of very, very smart and open minded Christians (especially Ron Paul, a fundy of whom I've read 2 books and studied and stuff). One problem with Christianity is that most of them are perfectly OK with an endless occupation of middle eastern countries as long as brown Muslim people are being bombed and hundreds of thousands end up fleeing as refugees. They try and justify it because of "Sharia Law is taking over America....Muslims hate the US!! ( :runaway:)" which of course is a bull crap talking point proliferated by MSM lunatics like Bill O'reilly, Hannity, and Rush. They're so closed minded that they won't even read back to the 1953 coup when our relations with Iran went sour, and it was our fault. They'd rather just nuke the crap out of Tehran and lol as oil prices drop because they think that Muslims are impeding the largest religion in the world from growing even more.
I don't think this makes Christians stupid. I have some very good friends and family that are perfectly fine with this and they are humble, respectable Christians as well. I also realize many Christians don't believe in this idiocy, but the ones that do I'm not sure how they justify it. I have some idea but that's for another thread.
This and their insane opposition to people getting married has really made them look like clowns, even though the vast majority of them are just normal people. It is a big group think on those issues though.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.- Abe Lincoln
and to think....
....and he's on the $5 dollar bill.
Right under the "In God We Trust".... Fact is stranger than fiction.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.- Abe Lincoln
and to think....
....and he's on the $5 dollar bill.
Right under the "In God We Trust".... Fact is stranger than fiction.
This is called the golden rule, pretty much central to most religions.
-
did abe lincoln really say that? god what a pimp
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.- Abe Lincoln
and to think....
....and he's on the $5 dollar bill.
Right under the "In God We Trust".... Fact is stranger than fiction.
This is called the golden rule, pretty much central to most religions.
Except Republicans who booooo'd the golden rule at a debate when a true Christian (Ron Paul) brought it up.
-
did abe lincoln really say that? god what a pimp
I think he was quoting someone else when he said it. However, I also think he was saying it in reference to how he viewed his own religious feelings, which were very nearly atheism. If somebody read Lincoln's Life or whatever it is, they can confirm. I don't think he ever said he was an atheist, but he was close to it.
-
did abe lincoln really say that? god what a pimp
I think he was quoting someone else when he said it. However, I also think he was saying it in reference to how he viewed his own religious feelings, which were very nearly atheism. If somebody read Lincoln's Life or whatever it is, they can confirm. I don't think he ever said he was an atheist, but he was close to it.
You can find hundreds of Abe Lincoln quotes where he references God and the Bible.
-
did abe lincoln really say that? god what a pimp
I think he was quoting someone else when he said it. However, I also think he was saying it in reference to how he viewed his own religious feelings, which were very nearly atheism. If somebody read Lincoln's Life or whatever it is, they can confirm. I don't think he ever said he was an atheist, but he was close to it.
You can find hundreds of Abe Lincoln quotes where he references God and the Bible.
Yes, you can. The overall view that I have of Lincoln is that he was not a strong believer of Christianity, specifically that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
-
did abe lincoln really say that? god what a pimp
I think he was quoting someone else when he said it. However, I also think he was saying it in reference to how he viewed his own religious feelings, which were very nearly atheism. If somebody read Lincoln's Life or whatever it is, they can confirm. I don't think he ever said he was an atheist, but he was close to it.
You can find hundreds of Abe Lincoln quotes where he references God and the Bible.
Yes, you can. The overall view that I have of Lincoln is that he was not a strong believer of Christianity, specifically that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
He certainly was not a zealot, but he seemed to believe in God.
-
did abe lincoln really say that? god what a pimp
I think he was quoting someone else when he said it. However, I also think he was saying it in reference to how he viewed his own religious feelings, which were very nearly atheism. If somebody read Lincoln's Life or whatever it is, they can confirm. I don't think he ever said he was an atheist, but he was close to it.
You can find hundreds of Abe Lincoln quotes where he references God and the Bible.
Yes, you can. The overall view that I have of Lincoln is that he was not a strong believer of Christianity, specifically that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
He certainly was not a zealot, but he seemed to believe in God.
One can believe in God and not Jesus Christ.
-
Separation of church and state has come to mean something completely different than originally intended. It wasn't to take religion out of government, but to take government out of religion.
well then we should change that and get religion the eff out of government.
When everyone in government are atheists, the world will be an immoral shithole. We are on our way.
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.- Abe Lincoln
and to think....
....and he's on the $5 dollar bill.
Right under the "In God We Trust".... Fact is stranger than fiction.
that was added in the 50's i believe. same with "under God" in the pledge.. the 50's were fairly detrimental to the separation..
-
did abe lincoln really say that? god what a pimp
I think he was quoting someone else when he said it. However, I also think he was saying it in reference to how he viewed his own religious feelings, which were very nearly atheism. If somebody read Lincoln's Life or whatever it is, they can confirm. I don't think he ever said he was an atheist, but he was close to it.
You can find hundreds of Abe Lincoln quotes where he references God and the Bible.
Yes, you can. The overall view that I have of Lincoln is that he was not a strong believer of Christianity, specifically that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
He certainly was not a zealot, but he seemed to believe in God.
then he wouldn't have stood a chance in such a progressive group of thinkers like the new Republitard Party.....
-
Barton is wrong. Unfortunately, it's easy to manipulate the majority of Evangelicals in this country. Philip Jenkins(an evangelical) wrote a book a few years back called The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (that it has no mind), and Barton's BS is another example. Most of the founding fathers were deists. They believed in a clockmaker God who set the universe in motion and then watched everything unfold without manipulating history whatsoever. Which is clearly the opposite of the God-Man Savior of Christianity.. For example, Jefferson created his own bible by stripping the new testament of all spiritual/supernatural content.
Did anyone else take any Dr. Linder classes? He stressed that a civil religion has always subsisted in American life. It is at times similar to and sometimes informed by Judeo-Christian beliefs but it is certainly not any sort of Christian denomination. Linder said there must be a separation of church and state, but that religion and politics are impossible to separate. Like 8manpick said, the government shouldn't sanction any religious (regardless of religion) public prayer in schools, etc.. But individuals should have the right to bow their head if they choose.
I haven't had time to read this thread until today - but I was glad someone posted this. Majority of the founding fathers being deists is all that needs to be known.
On a personal note, Atheism is as foolish as any other doctrine. To believe in nothing is a belief. Now, I would say agnosticism is the most intellectually rational decision. To admit we do not know is probably the most honest and wise claim that could be made. But, faith is not based on what is wise. Faith can be based on what serves humanity the best. I would say any religion that claims that all men are created equal in the image of a perfect God is a good one. Too bad it couldn't stop there.
-
https://twitter.com/abfrancois/status/1183774488820887552?s=21
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk