17
   

During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 02:45 am
@oristarA,
As Izzy pointed out, Benjamin Disraeli, who became the Prime Minister of Great Britain almost a century after the American revolution, was only able to sit in Parliament because he had converted from Judaism to the Church of England--in his case at the age of 12. The Test Act was repealed in 1828, but the Catholic Relief Act (1829) and the Jewish Relief Act (1858) each prohibited either Catholics or Jews from advising the monarch on ecclesiastic matters--therefore effectively making it impossible for a Catholic of a Jew to be the Prime Minister. I believe that Ramsey MacDonald was the first PM who was not an Anglican, in 1924.

There is no reason to assume that the revolution weakened religion in either Great Britain or in America. In fact, in the years after the American revolution, evangelicalism became a powerful force in England--which is hardly evidence of a weakening of christianity.

You know far too little of the history of the United State or Great Britain to make blanket statements such as you have here.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 02:50 am
My remarks about Jefferson have been based on my contempt for him, and the unwarranted, almost surreal hagiography which surrounds him. It has nothing to do with his christianity or lack thereof. Jefferson was opposed to what he saw as religious mumbo-jumbo, but that is not evidence that he was anti-christian. The so-called Jefferson Bible, (which i'm sure you've never heard of until now) is evidence of an admiration for the putative Jesus, even if he eschewed any organized christian sect.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 04:03 am
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

Even then, I found that hard to swallow.



That must have really pissed off the priest.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 11:43 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

As Izzy pointed out, Benjamin Disraeli, who became the Prime Minister of Great Britain almost a century after the American revolution, was only able to sit in Parliament because he had converted from Judaism to the Church of England--in his case at the age of 12. The Test Act was repealed in 1828, but the Catholic Relief Act (1829) and the Jewish Relief Act (1858) each prohibited either Catholics or Jews from advising the monarch on ecclesiastic matters--therefore effectively making it impossible for a Catholic of a Jew to be the Prime Minister. I believe that Ramsey MacDonald was the first PM who was not an Anglican, in 1924.

There is no reason to assume that the revolution weakened religion in either Great Britain or in America. In fact, in the years after the American revolution, evangelicalism became a powerful force in England--which is hardly evidence of a weakening of christianity.

You know far too little of the history of the United State or Great Britain to make blanket statements such as you have here.


Let me remind you, Set, that I've invoked Contrex. Are you telling us that he's lying about the current situation of the Christianity in UK? He says nobody believes the religion there.
So you've touted yourself knowing more history of UK than Contrex? Cool
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 11:55 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

My remarks about Jefferson have been based on my contempt for him, and the unwarranted, almost surreal hagiography which surrounds him. It has nothing to do with his christianity or lack thereof. Jefferson was opposed to what he saw as religious mumbo-jumbo, but that is not evidence that he was anti-christian. The so-called Jefferson Bible, (which i'm sure you've never heard of until now) is evidence of an admiration for the putative Jesus, even if he eschewed any organized christian sect.


Wait a munite. Did you say "the putative Jesus"? Do you know that a putative figure in history often turns out to be an illusion? If you were unsure about whether Jesus Christ is true or not, why have you played a diehard role in defending Christianity (the word is all about Christ!)?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2014 03:55 am
Whatever you allege Contrex to have said about christianity today in the UK is not relevant to the state of christianity in Great Britain more than 230 years ago. I used the term putative because there is no reliable, historical evidence that such an individual as the one now called Jesus existed in Palestine 2000 years ago. I have not "defended" christianity at all. I am not only not a christian,i'm an atheist. What i defended was the historical record from your lame-brain attempt at historical analysis. More than 200 years ago, the populations of both Great Britain and the United States were in the majority christians.

Once again, you don't know enough history to be shooting off your mouth like this.

EDIT: I offered no value judgments on christianity. I didn't say it was a good thing, i didn't say it was a bad thing. I was not defending christianity. I begin to suspect that you lack the ability to judge the meaning of what others say, in whatever language.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2014 01:23 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Whatever you allege Contrex to have said about christianity today in the UK is not relevant to the state of christianity in Great Britain more than 230 years ago. I used the term putative because there is no reliable, historical evidence that such an individual as the one now called Jesus existed in Palestine 2000 years ago. I have not "defended" christianity at all. I am not only not a christian,i'm an atheist. What i defended was the historical record from your lame-brain attempt at historical analysis. More than 200 years ago, the populations of both Great Britain and the United States were in the majority christians.

Once again, you don't know enough history to be shooting off your mouth like this.

EDIT: I offered no value judgments on christianity. I didn't say it was a good thing, i didn't say it was a bad thing. I was not defending christianity. I begin to suspect that you lack the ability to judge the meaning of what others say, in whatever language.


Are you confident that your ideas are consistent from the beginning of the discussion?

Let it be known: the purpose of understanding history is to better serve reality.

You've told us - "More than 200 years ago, the populations of both Great Britain and the United States were in the majority christians."

Yes.

But the question is why the population of christians in the United Stated has kept a steady growth after the Revolution, while the actual population of christians in Great Britain has declined since (as Contrex pointed out - "today nobody believes the national religion")?

Now, do you see the relevance?

As for whether you've defended Christianity or not, the guys who come here have witnessed how you, after I quoted Jefferson's famous remark - "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man", bombarded him with every possible weapon from your arsenal. Ipso facto, you did defend the religion.


Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2014 02:29 am
@oristarA,
I don't accept your ipse dixit statement. The purpose of studying history is to better understand human nature. You can keep your Marxist dialectic to yourself. You are the one who keeps shifting the emphasis here. You tried to claim that the Americans attacked christianity in order to lower the morale of the British. That's bullsh*t. It's also bullshit that i defended christianity. Pointing out how very wrong you were is not a defense of christianity. It's just keeping the record straight.
knaivete
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2014 07:03 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
But the question is why the population of christians in the United Stated has kept a steady growth after the Revolution, while the actual population of christians in Great Britain has declined since ...?

Now, do you see the relevance?


Well, do you?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2014 10:40 am
@knaivete,
It is not relevant. I'm not going to waste time one you, as it seems you're only trolling. That's just another dodge on Oristar's part, to avoid acknowledging having made a stupid remark.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 12:27 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I don't accept your ipse dixit statement. The purpose of studying history is to better understand human nature. You can keep your Marxist dialectic to yourself. You are the one who keeps shifting the emphasis here. You tried to claim that the Americans attacked christianity in order to lower the morale of the British. That's bullsh*t. It's also bullshit that i defended christianity. Pointing out how very wrong you were is not a defense of christianity. It's just keeping the record straight.


This truculent message of yours, short as it is, sets up two strawmen:

(1) A fictitious Marxist (when I believe that the central ideas <or the conclusion> of Marx expressed in the Communist Manifesto are bullshit, you call me a Marxist?).

(2) Distorting my original message.

What I've said is:
oristarA wrote:

No wonder Thomas Jefferson said:"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
The success of American Independence demanded some degree of anti-Christianity to undermine the morale of the then Great Britain.


Think of this:

Great Britain was built on Christianity, while the United States was in majority Christian. Now the two countries were at war, at a life-and-death fighting. Was there a great possibility of the existence of anti-Christianity?

Facts speak louder than words. It is probable that Christianity contains the seeds of self-destruction. Or in another word, it contains the seeds of anti-Christianity.

To euphemize the jarring voice "anti-Christianity", it was the time to launch a campaign - the Enlightenment. Because evidence-based science and faith-based religion are such alien categories that they must be "anti" each other.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 02:24 am
Hogwash
oristarA
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 02:39 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Hogwash


Does it mean your lame brain has run out of its last drop of power, Set?
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:06 am
@oristarA,
C + anti-C = 0

Quote:
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

This statement was made by an official representative of the U.S., but is actually a line from the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, initially signed by a representative of the US on 4 November 1796 during Washington's presidency, approved by Congress 7 June 1797 and finally signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. Article 11 of it reads:

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 or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility 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.

* Joel Barlow, who had served as Washington's chaplain, and was also a good friend of Paine and Jefferson was the representative in charge of the translation.


Why is this very interesting? Read what Washington ever said:

Quote:
In his first general order to his troops, General George Washington called on ...

Every officer and man...to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.






0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:06 am
What it means is that it's pointless to go on talking to you. You're a liar. You continually deny having said what you patently said--you even quote yourself where you wrote it. You continue to defend an idiotic claim on your part, which has no basis in historical fact, and you offer a classic Marxist dialectic definition of the purpose of history, and then deny that you're Marxist. You may not be a Marxist, but your thinking has not progressed beyond that point.

You're peddling hogwash, and you have been since the beginning of the thread. I'm not going to sit here and point out your idiocy to you time and again, especially when you're obviously willing to lie, even when it's clear that you are lying. You have no rhetorical skills, and you appear to have few if any reasoning skills and to be a stranger to logic.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:17 am
@Setanta,
Apparently you're superstitious.
Always remember: DON'T jump to conclusion on a single piece of evidence.
Let alone you don't have any evidence here.
You're a bad tempered old dog who refuses to budge even before strong logic.
You liar, so stubborn, Setanta.
I know you're at your wit's end and you also have lost enthusiasm to learn new ideas and new knowledge.

0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:19 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You have no rhetorical skills


You seem to be worse.
Any opinion from you guys who come here?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:43 am
Here is plain evidence that you have no rhetorical skills:

oristarA wrote:
Setanta wrote:
You tried to claim that the Americans attacked christianity in order to lower the morale of the British. That's bullsh*t.


You claim that that is a straw man. Then, you come up with this, quoting yourself:

oristarA wrote:
The success of American Independence demanded some degree of anti-Christianity to undermine the morale of the then Great Britain.


It's tedious. You lie about what you've already written. What i'm tiring of is the necessity to repeat again and again the bullshit you've peddled while you deny having written it. You're a waste of time.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 07:15 am
@Setanta,
Can you find any one who supports your interpretation?
It seems the answer is NONE.
Your only fan WH has abandoned you.
You are not qualified to challenge Jefferson.
Your nasty words have betrayed your ignorance and shallow understanding.
And your shallowness has led you nowhere.
I'm not going to waste time on you any more unless you dare to provoke me - then I will show people that you are actually a shame for America.
ossobuco
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Aug, 2014 03:49 pm
@oristarA,
I support Setanta's posts on this thread in their entirety. Your trying to school him is ludicrous. I only have continued to read because your claims are both peculiar and funny. Setanta doesn't need me to cheerlead for him. I post because you think that probably no one supports him.

I'll not be reading any oristar threads again.

 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.13 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 12:43:05