The United States was not founded on Christianity.

I'm out in California right now, and I'm fortunate to be able to watch UC public access. I was watching a Foerster Guest Lecturer last night talk about colonial Americas and how religion was being used at the time, further how it shaped our constitution later. Very interesting material.

While I don't have the time or patience to recap everything, I might encourage readers to look into the long running debate between Puritan John Cotton (MA) and Roger Williams (founder of the Rhode Island colony). Specifically the arguements over Roger Williams original book "The Bloody Tenant" which dealt with religious persecusion and orthodoxy.

Williams, a Presbetyrian (sp?), is a stark contrast to the more familiar Jefferson in the way he approaches supporting the division of Church and state. Williams thought that "moral" and "religious" athority were both present, but had two different jurisdictions. His arguements with long time antagonist John Cotton were over the issue of whether a nation could be in good moral standing without relgious orthodoxy.

Very Interesting stuff.

Take time to look this one up.
K
O

0 Replies

If your going to nitpick about the meaning of race remember it has more than one meaning.

Also it should be noted that when Darwin came up with his Theory of Evolution he had a far smaller data base of information than we do today. However the knowledge Darwin had at his disposal far exceeded the that of authors of Genesis so a much greater reliance can be put on Darwins ideas than Biblical mythology.

Quote:

Related Topics
anthropology
racism

race
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

4. Humans considered as a group.

5. Biology.
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

b.A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]

USAGE NOTE The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations?-Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid?-are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points?-such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another?-many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

If your going to nitpick about the meaning of race remember it has more than one meaning.

Also it should be noted that when Darwin came up with his Theory of Evolution he had a far smaller data base of information than we do today. However the knowledge Darwin had at his disposal far exceeded the that of authors of Genesis so a much greater reliance can be put on Darwins ideas than Biblical mythology.

Quote:
Related Topics
anthropology
racism

race
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.

3. A genealogical line; a lineage.

4. Humans considered as a group.

5. Biology.
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.

b.A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]

USAGE NOTE The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations?-Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid?-are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points?-such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another?-many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

Alright, xingu.

Which definition of race do YOU think Darwin had in mind when he used the term in Origin and in Descent (especially when he used 'races') ?

You highlighted 3 definitions.

Do you think he was referring to 'races' as in Germanic, etc?

Do you think he was referring to the human race as a whole using the term 'races' ?

Isn't it quite evident by the context that he had in mind 'races' as distinguished genetically and as evidenced by physical characteristics?

Really your denial of the obvious is staggering (but not startling).

Setanta wanted to throw mud at those who use the term 'race', calling it 'alledgedly scientific', but quietly tried to change the subject when it was pointed out that Darwin used the term profusely in his works that were (and are) considered classics of science, the very foundation of (some folks' view of ) modern science.

0 Replies

It doesn't matter what Darwin said. Today we know a lot more than Darwin. Darwin could have implied the earth was flat, just as the Bible does, but we know better today. So I don't care what he said or implied. Todays evidence is what counts, not what Darwin said based on what he knew.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wanted to throw mud at those who use the term 'race' . . .

This is bullshit, and you are a liar. Eclectic was claiming that there were no fundamentalists before the early 20th century, and for his evidence, he quoted a citation of the origin of the term. So i pointed out that the use of the term "race" as an allegedly "scientific" term only dates from the 19th century, and the term racist only dates from the early 20th century. Then i asked him if he thought there were no racists before the 19th century. The point is that just because people did not call Christian fringe groups fundamentalist doesn't mean that they were not in the sense that the word is used today. That shot right over your head, though, apparently, as it shot over Eclectic's head. Although i would happy to sling mud at racists, i was not attempting to "throw mud at those who use the term 'race'"--i was using it in an example which seems to exceed your third grade comprehension skills.

Not content to peddle just one lie, however, and probably eager to show just how dedicated a liar you are, you continue with this drek:

[quoute] . . . but quietly tried to change the subject when it was pointed out that Darwin used the term profusely in his works that were (and are) considered classics of science, the very foundation of (some folks' view of ) modern science.[/quote]

This is a lie because when you trotted your horseshit out, this is how i responded:

Quote:

So your point is that Darwin said it, so it must be true? That is an hilariously stupid position to take. All science is based upon falsifiability. The concept of separate human races has been falsified, and whether or not Darwin believed there were separate races is meaningless. It neither makes him correct in that regard, nor does it make him incorrect in regard to all the other work which he did.

So i did not try to "quietly change the subject."

Therefore, you flannel-mouthed son of a bytch--you are a liar.

0 Replies

Re: The United States was not founded on Christianity.

stlstrike3 wrote:

One of the biggest lies touted by the religious right is that the United States was founded on Christian ideals.

What's the point in arguing whether or not the United States was founded on Christian ideals, unless one can successfully argue that the past must be a merited yardstick on how to act in the present and/or future?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wanted to throw mud at those who use the term 'race' . . .

you are a liar.

Calling the term 'alledgedly scientific' is a not so subtle attempt at mudslinging.

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
. . . but quietly tried to change the subject when it was pointed out that Darwin used the term profusely in his works that were (and are) considered classics of science, the very foundation of (some folks' view of ) modern science.

This is a lie ..., this is how i responded:

Quote:
So your point is that Darwin said it, so it must be true? That is an hilariously stupid position to take. All science is based upon falsifiability. The concept of separate human races has been falsified, and whether or not Darwin believed there were separate races is meaningless. It neither makes him correct in that regard, nor does it make him incorrect in regard to all the other work which he did.

So i did not try to "quietly change the subject."

....you are a liar.

Your strawman

Quote:

So your point is that Darwin said it, so it must be true? That is an hilariously stupid position to take....

is a transparent attempt to change the subject by interjecting fantasy.

0 Replies

Must we continue to whip this dead Darwin?

The hypothesis of evolution should be judged according to its current exposition.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Calling the term 'alledgedly scientific' is a not so subtle attempt at mudslinging.

You consider it to be mudslinging to claim that someone is wrong? I used "allegedly scientific" because there was, in fact, no replicable, falsifiable scientific basis for the claims about race. They were all based on morphology. Darwin used morphology to underpin his speculations about descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors. That has largely been borne out by the application of other scientific disciplines, and the refinements of biology entailed in genetic studies. However, genetic studies have not borne out any contention that there are separate "races" of human beings which were alleged based on morphology. That is a case of the principle of falsification in action.

I can see, though, why someone would want to allege that denying (and i was questioning, not denying--although i am willing to deny it) that there are separate races among humans would constitute mudslinging--if that someone were dedicated to a contention that there are races which are separate and unequal. Feeling some guilt there, Bubba?

real life wrote:

Your strawman

A strawman in an attempt to falsely claim that one's interlocutor has advanced an argument which one is prepared to demolish. It is a logical fallacy because the argument attributed to one's interlocutor is not in fact what that person said. You clearly said that i had tried to "quietly change the subject." It is not therefore a strawman (you obviously don't know the use of the term in rhetorical exchange), because that is in fact what you claimed. And, as i demonstrated, i did not attempt to change the subject--so, you are a liar.

Quote:

Quote:
So your point is that Darwin said it, so it must be true? That is an hilariously stupid position to take....

is a transparent attempt to change the subject by interjecting fantasy.

I didn't interject anything. I did not state anything. I asked you a question. And this, of course, was not related to whether or not i "quietly attempted to change the subject." Asking what you intended by introducing quotations of Darwin was completely à propos.

Once again, you clearly don't know the meaning of the strawman fallacy.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Must we continue to whip this dead Darwin?

The hypothesis of evolution should be judged according to its current exposition.

It is also, of course, off topic.

What i find most amusing is that, in threads in which other people have alleged that this or that man among the "founders" was a deist, and not a Christian, i have actually pointed out cases in which this is false. For example, there is a single quote of one Anglican bishop to the effect that Washington did not take communion. We don't know if Washington refused communion because he was only going through the motions of the church service, and actually did not believe in it (which would have been completely out of character for the man), or simply because he didn't like the bishop, but was not going to make a public scene (which would be completely in character). If Washington were truly estranged from the Anglican church, given his character, it is unlikely that he would have been at a church service at which anyone could observe whether or not he took communion.

However, Washington was a member of the Truro parish of the Anglican church, and was an active member. He contributed to parish funds, and helped to underwrite and subscribe repair and building projects, and acted for many years as a vestryman. It is completely understandable why, when he went away to war, and then to the constitutional convention, and finally to serve two terms as President, he would have ceased to stand for and act as a vestryman. On the whole, the evidence is very good that Washington was a practicing Christian. I have always maintained that point.

In respect of this particular thread, i pointed out, as i have on more than one occasion, that the language of the treaty concluded with the Bey of Algiers was a specific political expedient to obviate the excuse that the Muslims had for enslaving or murdering American seamen out of hand, by denying them the allegation of Holy War. If the United States claimed not to be a Christian nation, then in international law, they had the right to seek redress, by military means if necessary, for violations of the customs of war as they were understood in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when Muslims practiced their depredations on the basis of a claim of Holy War.

So, whether or not the members of the Congress (Fifth Congress, i believe, but don't quote me) considered the United States to be a Christian nation is not something we can necessarily say with certainty. That they publicly stated that the United States were not, is, however, an obvious appeal to diplomatic expedience, for whatever the individual members may have believed in their hearts.

So it is rather ironic to have this feeble and dull-witted attack levied on me by the inept member "real life," when in fact, my contribution to this topic has rather supported his point of view, rather than attacked it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Calling the term 'alledgedly scientific' is a not so subtle attempt at mudslinging.

You consider it to be mudslinging to claim that someone is wrong? I used "allegedly scientific" because there was, in fact, no replicable, falsifiable scientific basis for the claims about race. They were all based on morphology. Darwin used morphology to underpin his speculations about descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors. That has largely been borne out by the application of other scientific disciplines, and the refinements of biology entailed in genetic studies. However, genetic studies have not borne out any contention that there are separate "races" of human beings which were alleged based on morphology. That is a case of the principle of falsification in action.

I can see, though, why someone would want to allege that denying (and i was questioning, not denying--although i am willing to deny it) that there are separate races among humans would constitute mudslinging--if that someone were dedicated to a contention that there are races which are separate and unequal. Feeling some guilt there, Bubba?

real life wrote:
Your strawman

A strawman in an attempt to falsely claim that one's interlocutor has advanced an argument which one is prepared to demolish. It is a logical fallacy because the argument attributed to one's interlocutor is not in fact what that person said. You clearly said that i had tried to "quietly change the subject." It is not therefore a strawman (you obviously don't know the use of the term in rhetorical exchange), because that is in fact what you claimed. And, as i demonstrated, i did not attempt to change the subject--so, you are a liar.

Quote:
Quote:
So your point is that Darwin said it, so it must be true? That is an hilariously stupid position to take....

is a transparent attempt to change the subject by interjecting fantasy.

I didn't interject anything. I did not state anything. I asked you a question. And this, of course, was not related to whether or not i "quietly attempted to change the subject." Asking what you intended by introducing quotations of Darwin was completely à propos.

Once again, you clearly don't know the meaning of the strawman fallacy.

Please.

Again, your 'so your point is........' is a transparent attempt to state something without stating it directly,( and in the process an attempt also to change the subject.)

It's really beneath you, or so I would have thought.

0 Replies

Your tone is rather silly. I asked you what your point was precisely because, as usual, you don't write with enough precision to make it clear. To quote Darwin about race is meaningless, if Darwin happens to be wrong. And it was not attempt to change the subject, because you had completely failed to understand the subject in the first place. Eclectic stated that there could not have been any fundamentalists before the term was coined in the early 20th century. Therefore, i pointed out that the use of the term races as an allegedly scientific term does not occur until the mid-19th century, and the term racist does not appear until the early 20th century. I then asked him if he thought that means there were no racists before 1901.

Since this seems to have shot right over your head, i'll explain it to you slowly. Whether or not there were fragmentation of Protestant sects by people holding reactionary theological views which we would today call fundamentalist prior to 1900 would not be determined by whether or not the term were in use. By analogy, i was pointing out that there were racists before 1900, even if the term weren't in use.

But both Eclectic and you missed the point entirely. Eclectic responded by pointing out that i don't know what "race" s/he is. That is not relevant, but i did respond by saying that i do know, because there is only one human race. You decided to jump in, clearly demonstrating that you had missed the point, as well, with your silly quotes of Darwin. So if anyone attempted to change the subject, it were you.

You don't even rate a "nice try" for that crap.

0 Replies

Oh Brothers who are listening to these words of mine here in the Umayyad Mosque! And Oh Muslim brothers in the mosque of the World of Islam forty to fifty years later! Do not make apologies, saying, "We do not do any harm, but also we do not have the power to do anything beneficial; therefore we are excused." Such an apology is not acceptable. Your laziness, and saying, "What is it to me?", and your displaying no effort and not getting into the working spirit through Islamic Unity and true Islamic Nationhood have done much damage and injustice to yourselves. (The Damascus Sermon, 55)
And especially, Oh Arabs who are great ,esteemed, and awakened or to be awaikened! First and foremost, I address you with these words. For you were our teachers and leaders, and the teachers and leaders of all the tribes of Islam, and you were the fighters of Islam. It was later that the mighty Turkish nation fully assisted you in that sacred duty .
Therefore, due to laziness your sin is great. And your good acts and deeds are also great and exalted. And in particular we await with great expectation from Divine Mercy that the different Arab tribes entering into a most exalted position in forty to fifty years' time, like that of the United States of America, and your being successful like in the past in establishing Islamic rule in half the globe, or rather in most of it, which now remains in captivity. If some fearful calamity or a doomsday do not soon erupt, the coming generation shall see this, inshaallah. (The Damascus Sermon, 57)

the important community of America is searching for the true religion. Because in view of this fact, the Qur'an by no means has-nor can have-any equal. And absolutely nothing can take the place of this greatest miracle.

0 Replies

And how is that relevant to the topic Belikenother? I don't believe you will find many here who crave your preaching at them. Personally I think Islam is a deadend. Islam currently

0 Replies

Belike 'Nother is going around the site posting screeds which he or she has copied and pasted from the Quranic commentaries by the early 20th century Islamic scholar Said Nursi. In most cases, he or she doesn't bother to acknkowledge that they are copy and paste jobs, and that they were written by someone else.

0 Replies

I think that the fact that belikenother cuts and pastes is very telling. Apparently, he has no thoughts of his own, and mindlessly regurgitates the thoughts of another.

Is that what your religion is about, belikenother? Mindless repetition? If so, I can't imagine why anyone with a brain in his head would even think of it seriously. Pitiful!

0 Replies

Re: The United States was not founded on Christianity.

stlstrike3 wrote:

One of the biggest lies touted by the religious right is that the United States was founded on Christian ideals. This has been one of the bedrock principles that they have used to attack abortion rights, gay rights, and stem cell research. And it has no place in our politics.

You don't have to look far to see Christian leaders preaching that separation of church and state is a lie, and that religious interference in politics is a mandate. But evidence for their claims that the USA is a Christian society is questionable at best.

Evidence that our founding fathers wanted to protect this country from a religious agenda, however, is far more impressive.

Particularly, article 11.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

You do make a good point. Of course, it's entirely possible that they lied in the treaty so that they could keep peace. That's not the first time it would have happened.

However, the separation of church and state was to protect the church, not the state. I don't see how everyone gets those confused. Here, read it:

Congress shall make no law [in respect to] an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Especially part two. Congress not being allowed to pass a low prohibiting free exercise of religion is protecting the government from religion? I don't think so.

Congress not being allowed to pass a law in respect to an establishment of religion...all that means is that they can't set up a national religion and force people to believe it. Which protects all religions.

It says nothing about creationism not being allowed to be taught in classrooms along with evolution, it says nothing about abortion not being allowed to be outlawed because of moral qualms.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your tone is rather silly. I asked you what your point was precisely because, as usual, you don't write with enough precision to make it clear. To quote Darwin about race is meaningless, if Darwin happens to be wrong. And it was not attempt to change the subject, because you had completely failed to understand the subject in the first place. Eclectic stated that there could not have been any fundamentalists before the term was coined in the early 20th century. Therefore, i pointed out that the use of the term races as an allegedly scientific term does not occur until the mid-19th century, and the term racist does not appear until the early 20th century. I then asked him if he thought that means there were no racists before 1901.

Since this seems to have shot right over your head, i'll explain it to you slowly. Whether or not there were fragmentation of Protestant sects by people holding reactionary theological views which we would today call fundamentalist prior to 1900 would not be determined by whether or not the term were in use. By analogy, i was pointing out that there were racists before 1900, even if the term weren't in use.

But both Eclectic and you missed the point entirely. Eclectic responded by pointing out that i don't know what "race" s/he is. That is not relevant, but i did respond by saying that i do know, because there is only one human race. You decided to jump in, clearly demonstrating that you had missed the point, as well, with your silly quotes of Darwin. So if anyone attempted to change the subject, it were you.

You don't even rate a "nice try" for that crap.

I completely agree with you. His "arguments" aren't even arguments at all. Where is any intelligent reasoning? This type of person isn't even worth debating as they probably won't understand your arguments and will not have their beliefs swayed whether they are disproven or not.

0 Replies

BlueAwesomeness wrote:

However, the separation of church and state was to protect the church, not the state. I don't see how everyone gets those confused. Here, read it:

It may work both ways. Jefferson, and others, saw the persecution by the Catholic Church and how the Puritans behaved earlier in America. From this they rightly believed that a state run by religion or controlled by religion cannot be a free state. Freedom can come only if there is a firm wall separating the two.

Religion, esp. a conservative religion, is not an enterprise that tolerates or practices freedom of thought.

0 Replies

Xingu's point is well taken. Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were both exiled from the Massachusetts Bay colony because they were considered to be at least heterodox, if not actually heretical. John Winthrop extended the franchise of the colony to all adult males, and unprecedented expansion of the governmental franchise--except, however, that the adult males had to be members of recognized and approved congregations. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, Massachusetts and several other states still had established churches, and many states continued to collect a church tax well into the 19th century.

0 Replies

The United States was not founded on Christianity.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know