That’s the point, preceded, not followed.  & there are several people involved in this post, I was extending it to those I was sarcastic toward.

Is David DB?

No. DB started out as “Dr. B” and hijacked a thread now titled “Oh, by the way… (formerly word on the new Matrix trailer)” because of it.

His words aren’t nearly as condescending as David’s tended to be, so you may want to read the best of David first.

The explaination of the pledge sounds fine to me.  The fact that the kids would even ask that question smells of a set-up by parents.  & if not, then their kids really are obscenely ignorant, even for the age of 10.

Yes, that explanation sounds fine to a majority of Americans but it is still an inaccurate statement made by a teacher to a student.  How can a child be consider obscenely ignorant for asking about something few Americans understand?

As for Jesus, His death & resurrection were His teaching, so unless he decides to go back to being dead to me, I’ll continue to work with Him…

He’s dead.  Even if he truly ever existed he has been turned into somewhat of Santa Clause figure by the Christian church.

to get back “on topicâ€? I was wondering do y’all think this country is more “Christianâ€? than others on the planet?  If not, can you give examples of others? If so, why?  Is it in spite of the original intents when the government was founded?

Using a base definition of a Christian being one that follows the teachings of Christ I would say no.  We have more people professing to be Christians and adopting a pseudo Christian religion but I don’t consider the United States more Christian than other nations.

Leading a good, wholesome life with strong morals and values has been confused all to often with leading a Christian life.  If we were truly to equate the two, I would regard several people in this thread more Christ-like than many True Believers^TM.

The fact that the kids would even ask that question smells of a set-up by parents.

You know, that statement bugged me earlier - aren’t parents supposed to talk with their kids about what they hear in class?  And find out what, exactly, is being taught? And help kids learn to think for themselves?  It just seems like a really “involved, caring-parent” thing to do.

One of my kids’ teachers informed them that the reason the Northern hemisphere was cooler in winter was that “it was farther away from the sun” due to the tilt of the Earth’s axis.  Not correct - and you bet I primed him with a question to split it open. (The correct answer is that the tilt of the Earth’s axis causes a seasonal change in the angle of the sun’s rays.)

Originally posted by deadscot:
Even if he truly ever existed he has been turned into somewhat of Santa Clause figure by the Christian church.

I agree that the church has unfortunately turned him more into a santa clause figure, but i assure you he did exist.  His Roman death certificate is in a museum somewhere.

Thanks folks, I had fun collecting those quotes. They are just a small sampling of the opinions of these great men that span several decades of their lives. Knowing their thoughts does put you in touch with the past. I wish I was taught these words of wisdom when I was younger, memorizing dates and the names of battles and such could be so dry. History class would have been much more interesting if you got to know the man behind these iconic images.

Again, ellie continues her line that the “Fathers” thought Christianity was a good thing…

Wow, Spocko.  When you attach *pictures* to the quotes it really puts them in context...because they were obviously men who never thought anything through or changed their minds.  Any complex sbject they thought about can be easily summed up in one short, simple quote, that was never altered or affected by anything else that happened in their long lives.

ellie on 11/26/04 at 08:07 PM

Well, ellie mae, I didn’t just repost the same quotes with pix added. I gave further examples of their thoughts on organized religion (mostly Christianity), the artwork was just for fun. I don’t believe any of these quotes could be taken out of context. And, as I said above, these quotes come from their writing over many years. If you weren’t so sarcastic you may have provided a little information to support your claim that they somehow rescinded these words in later years.

I’m not really concerned with proving anything.  y’all are intelligent people who can research & form your own opinions.  I’m just explaining my own views.  If you have no interest in understanding, then by all means, ignore me!  It frustrates me that I’m labeled closed-minded or delusional when I don’t agree.  Those are personal attacks, not persuasive arguments. 

ellie on 11/27/04 at 04:19 AM

Hey, if you want to debate then you need to dibby up some factual support or least give us some clue to the rationale for your views. You explain nothing without these.
I did not attack you in any way in this thread, I believe you “drew first blood”.

Spocko didn’t exibit an understanding of their biographies & interpersonal relationships, which is what I generally give more value.

ellie on 11/27/04 at 04:19 AM

I did not intend to exhibit my understanding of their bios or relationships. I intended to present their feelings about Christianity as I have read. What I do or do not understand and what you value is irrelevant, their words are quite clear.

As for Jesus, His death & resurrection were His teaching, so unless he decides to go back to being dead to me, I’ll continue to work with Him…

ellie on 11/27/04 at 04:19 AM

Now now, that’s a good little robot.

An atheist might have too much of an emotional investment in his/her own reputation & intelligence to yeild that to anything else for ANY kind of other good.

ellie on 11/27/04 at 04:35 AM

One word - Prejudice.

What I said about ONE founding father (MUCH earlier), Jefferson, was simply his slave ownership, mistresses, argument against a national bank and picking & choosing what parts of God’s Word he thought were relevant that I don’t like.

ellie on 11/27/04 at 04:38 PM

I was going to go on but you have the right not to like anyone you want. The fact remains that Jefferson and the rest created something that was better than themselves and was based on the intellect of man and in no way should be attributed to any silly god myth.

PS. I have a pussy picture too!

PPS. Geekmom cracks me up!

Well if this were a real Christian Nation the women folks wouldn’t be a tappin the keys on no computer no-sar-re, theyd be taken care of the young-uns (at least ten) couse thats what Jesus put them on earth for! Maybes we-uns men would let them go to primary bible classes where they cna be taut how to services the men folks by the Godly preacher-man, just like the good old days ya-sir.
I was brought up as a Catholic educated in the Religious private school system studied Religion every day. But also studied Darwin, Socrates, Euclid, geology, physics and the dreaded biology.
I was taught by Sisters of the holy ghost, Brothers of the Jesuits, and laymen and women. They all emphasised reason logic and faith, with each having its own sphere of influence and duties. The Founding Fathers as a whole were more than the sum of the respective parts. And the Fanatics of today are foolish to believe that they will ever be able to deny the greatness of our origins. Ellie the immaturity of your arguments show the implausablity of the argument. This was a plot hatch by a hateful group of people to spoil Thanksgiving for a great number of people. A rousing FUCK YOU VERY MUCH to the lads and lassies at the Alliance Defense Fund!!

So I guess that’s a non-acceptance of the appology for “drawing 1st blood” I better continue to be a “good little robot” & not hurt Spocko’s feelings anymore by disagreeing.  Larkinsjapn ~ your little intro there was something I would consider immature.  & (barring the accent & refrence to Christ) a better representation of predominantly Muslim, Hundu, or Buddhist nations in my humble opinion.  Or maybe a really bad parody of Mark Twain?  How is that the core of Christianity anyway?

Ellie, you’re the one gettin’ your feelin’s all hurt by give-and-take.  If you dish it out, you’re going to get it back with compound interest. 

Try coming up with some facts.  Like Spocko’s quotes - those are factual; they’re things actually said by the people in question.  And I agree they’re sufficiently clear that it’s not possible to take them out of context.

So I guess that’s a non-acceptance of the appology for “drawing 1st blood� I better continue to be a “good little robot� & not hurt Spocko’s feelings anymore by disagreeing.

You can disagree all you want to, but you might have a better experience on SEB if you would expend more time on backing up the claims you get called on instead of making a fuss about being offended.

You may start by demonstrating Spocko to be wrong with more than simple denials or some sort of gnostic knowledge.

Spocko- Luckily, I had nothing in my mouth when I saw your kitten pic.

I don’t think the founding fathers intended this too be a Christian nation, but that several of them exhibited Christian lives, which is why I haven’t posted entire books that I’ve read on the events in their lives & the actions they took in response (which I figure you can but yourselves)

ellie- I suppose this is an excercise in futility, and everyone else here has already posed these same questions, but what kind of evidence is this?  If the founding fathers were Christians, and being Christian was important in defining the events in their lives and the actions they took, one might reasonably expect them to have written differently about Christianity than they did.  If you simply mean that they were concerned with issues such as fairness, freedom from tyranny, democracy, etc., and claim those as Judeo-Christian ethics, you are open to attack on two grounds. Firstly, that most if not all religions, not just Judeo-Christianity, have fair dealing and loving one’s neighbor as central themes.  And secondly, that democracy as an ideal is entirely foreign to Judeo-Christianity (and to most other religions as well).  Just claiming the founding fathers were acting according to Judeo-Christian ethics is pretty wishy-washy, and certainly not a defensible basis for teaching that they were Christians, especially so given the context, courtesy of deadscot:

Upon further reading on this topic of the teacher, it runs out that the incident that started this whole mess was a question in regard to the ‘Pledge of Allegianceâ€?.  One of Williams’ students had inquired as to why the words ‘under God’ were in our pledge and Williams responded in the normal ignorant fashion that ‘the country was founded under God’ and that was reasoning behind the inclusion of the words.

A parent, upon hearing of this misconstrued history being presented in the classroom, complained to the school and Williams was subsequently warned.  After a second undefined incident of this nature occurred, Williams lesson plan was subjected to review before presentation.

I’m not hurt anymore, I just know that if I haven’t been offered forgiveness by Spocko, then anything I say is going to be understood as further cruelty rather than an honest attempt to continue the learning in the discussion.

but there are others involved in the discussion…

ellie, you have not offended me.
If you need forgiveness then consider it offered.

If you want to debate further then explain to me why you and so many others continue to think this nation was founded as a Christian nation baptised by Jesus himself and the Founding Fathers served as his disciples!?

Actually, so far my experience is mostly good, or I wouldn’t still be posting.  I have to admit, when my friend 1st e-mailed me the kitten thing when the election started I was ROTFLOL too That about sums up Democratic campaign strategy.  That’s why the still hold an ironclad grip on hs dropouts.

Spocko - thank you.  I’ll say it AGAIN.  I simply think that several of the founding fathers exhibited Christian values in their lives, & I think this affected the way they governed.  TRUST ME, I’ve run into enough disagreements with people who think that the founding fathers were Jesus’ disciples.  I think I found the reason for all of this when I googled the topic.  There seems to be this frantic scramble to prove the founding fathers were atheists attempting to make a nation completely free of all religions!  I just think there’s a middle ground.  I ask again, if they wanted to create a safe haven for the non-religious, why has Christianity flourished here?

“If you simply mean that they were concerned with issues such as fairness, freedom from tyranny, democracy, etc., and claim those as Judeo-Christian ethics...” Yeah, most of that, except democracy.  Once again I revert to when Christ said “[His] kingdom is not of this world.”

As far as the attacks zilch mentions, democracy IS entirely foreign to Christianity, but I think they created a republic rather than a direct democracy for that reason: they were fearful of the tyranny of an uneducated & fickle majority. So they created a republic to keep the educated in charge.  You’re right about other religions, but culturally, Christianity was the one the founding fathers had experience with, whether they held it personally or not.

1st of all, there are no dates or sources for any of the quotes… soout of context is an understatement.  I couldn’t find it unless I has a PhD in the American revolution & constitutional convention.

What I’ve found most compelling recently (so it’s fresh in my mind) was the recent autobio of Hamilton by Chernow.  He understood the evils of slavery from his childhood experiences, fell in love, screwed up a lot, but never gave up.  His interactions with Washington, & the way Washington governed those around him.  At the end of his life, he claimed Christianity.

No one has mentioned Locke, who all of the fathers subscribed to, & his tretises are entirely based on the nature of God & scripture.

I agree with Franklin’s statements...in many ways the 1st one, as I have just explained on the proselytizing thread… He exhibited (like Martin Luther in some ways) a strong understanding of scripture & a strong dislike for incorrect religious dogma.  His autobiography supports many Christian values.

Lincoln appears to have gone through a conversion experience in the last 2 years of his life (probably having understood what hell is by living with Mary Todd.)

I’ll just leave off with people a lot smarter than me: http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/faithofo.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/fourthofjuly/features/50h028.html
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/3452

I know those links are one sided, I guess I was trying to balance out the pendulum.  I should have followed the original quotes with: sure, in the in the individual cases, it’s hard to take them out of a context you didn’t even put them in, but to play devil’s advocate, it wouldn’t be hard to throw them out based on a lack of source & dates.  The context I originally actually believed you were taking it out of is how those are a few of MANY men, & we’re focusing on their religious beliefs rather than their actual influence on our current structure.

ellie,

I don’t think that anyone here said that the founding fathers wanted to establish a safe colony for the non-religious.  I think the claim that most of us has made is that the founding fathers didn’t support a fundamentalist exclusionary approach.  We, that being those of us who have been arguing with you, have simply noted that a number of the founding fathers were clearly not Christian in the sense that many people would commonly think of the notion nowadays.  As such they probably weren’t trying to start a nation based on appeal to “Christian” ideals. 

I don’t think that the founding fathers intended there to be wide-spread atheism either.  What I do believe was intended was religious pluralism, or at least an openness to religious pluralism.  Most of the original European settlers of North America were persecuted religious minorities.  This being the case, it would at least prima facie seem likely that they would object to a state that enforced or even sided with a particular religious viewpoint. 

Now I will grant that this hasn’t been always evident in American History (persecution of Quakers and the Salem witch trials being glaring examples of religious intolerence).  However, it seems that from the wording of the U.S. Constitution that despite the momentary lapses in religious tolerence, the founding fathers intended that American citizens should have the right to decide for themselves what religious views to hold, whether their choice be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Atheism.

I do admit though that I might have misunderstood the clauses of the first amendment that guarantee that American citizens can believe whatever they want, and those that forbid any endorsement of any religious standpoint by any public agency or institution.

ellie- Having to say “under Godâ€?, to an atheist, is pretty specific: it assumes belief in a supernatural being.  Forcing children to say it (or stand silent, and be subject to ostracism by other children) is clear discrimination against atheists.

I’m curious how those who are against “under God” being in the Pledge of Allegiance square that with the fact that the Constitution itself is signed “In the Year of Our Lord.”

Shouldn’t someone file a lawsuit on 1st Amendment grounds to strike the phrase from the Constitution itself?  After all, in the year of “whose Lord? which Lord?” Or, one nation under “whose God? which God?” I see no difference. 

If “Under God” goes from the pledge, so goes “Our Lord” from the Constitution.

Now I will grant that this hasn’t been always evident in American History (persecution of Quakers and the Salem witch trials being glaring examples of religious intolerence).

And were, in fact, quite fresh in the minds of the framers of the Constitution - being rather recent history to them and all!  Just those two examples are more than enough to see why Jefferson, Madison, et. al. saw no place in government for religion.

Having to say “under God�, to an atheist, is pretty specific: it assumes belief in a supernatural being.

Take it one step further.  I wonder if the founding fathers, by signing their names under the statement in the “Year of Our Lord” assumes the founders believed “in a supernatural being”? 

Forcing children to say it (or stand silent, and be subject to ostracism by other children) is clear discrimination against atheists.

Is forcing children to read the Constitution itself “clear discrimination against athiests”?

I know. I know.  Let’s just not teach our children the Constitution either.

The two are not comparable, Rick.  One is an historical document, written in the common language of its time, and I am not being compelled to speak the words.  “The year of Our Lord” is another way of saying, “AD.” It wouldn’t matter if the document said, “In the year of Zeuss,” it’s historical and we don’t change history to suit us. 

(Though that’s exactly what the “Under God” phrase does… added many decades after the original pledge was written to suit a current fashion.)

We’re not usually compelled to recite the opening to the Constitution anyway.  The pledge, OTOH, is something we’re often compelled to say or be branded some kind of subversive (however passionate our devotion to American ideals,) especially for kids who most often have it foisted upon them.  Adding belief in a deity magnifies the insult.  So the compulsion against conscience is the problem.

I’m curious how those who are against “under God� being in the Pledge of Allegiance square that with the fact that the Constitution itself is signed “In the Year of Our Lord.�

Hmm… let’s see.  “Under God” was added to the Pledge in 1954, by an act of Congress, to separate us from the godless commies during the Red Scare.

“In the Year of Our Lord” on the Constitution was written a couple hundred years ago, when adding that particular phrase at the end of a date was quite common (why, I don’t know...or care, really), by a person who was actually there.

Shouldn’t someone file a lawsuit on 1st Amendment grounds to strike the phrase from the Constitution itself?  After all, in the year of “whose Lord? which Lord?â€? Or, one nation under “whose God? which God?â€? I see no difference.

Anyone can file any lawsuit they want to, but not only wouldn’t they have a leg to stand on, being there’s no way in hell someone could claim to be injured or coerced by a notation in a document - but striking something from the Constitution itself would, if I’m not mistaken, require an amendment (I’m not a constitutional scholar, by the way).

Besides, if they removed “In the Year of Our Lord” from the Constitution, there wouldn’t be ANY reference to their God in it at ALL for the Fundies to point to and say, “See!  America is TOO a Christian nation! Nyah nyah nyah” Not to mention they’d cry “Persecution!” if anyone even entertained the ridiculous notion of removing something that’s so trivial to anyone but the most intelletually-challenged of people.

DOF and I cross-posted, but as usual he’s so much more eloquent than I!

Goddammit, I wish I could’ve been born to parents who could’ve afforded to get me an education…

Well, why don’t we reset year 0 to the year of our leader? Problem solved.

Highly comparable.  When Congress added “Under God” our coins had “In God We Trust” for decades (back into the 1800s.) Adding this language to the Pledge was just re-affirming a long held American tradition.  It goes to show that these kinds of statements are cultural, not government endorsement of religion.  Anyways, I read the 1st Amendment to mean that Congress cannot establish one “brand” of religion over another.  To me secular humanism and athiesm are simply other “brands” of religion.  Whether you all like it or not, everyone has a “faith” in something.  I’ll go along with your interpretation of the 1st Amendment if you agree that means I have a right to be free from secular humanism and athiesm in the public square as well.