Friedemann,
I am curious to know if there are other well known figures whose views you would also qualify as “Sickening” as in revolting, disgusting". Who might they be?
I am not an English learner, I guess, so I am not sure whether I could sign up for these discussions. Yes, disagreeing does not necessarily mean to be impolite, Jillisa’s tone was more than diplomatic and polite, I have never said anything else.
some examples off the top of my head:
-
US-tele evangelist Pat Robertson blaming the Haitians for the earthquake because their ancestors had made “a pact with the devil”.
-
US ultra right anti-gay activist Fred Phelps who pickets dead soldiers’ funerals with slogans such as “thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates fags”.
-
The late US evangelist Jerry Falwell claiming 9/11 was God’s wrath for America’s evil ways.
-
Most of what Mahmoud Ahmedineschad has to say.
Jillisa93,
I would really enjoy a discussion about the founding fathers and their influence today. I would particularly like to understand why US conservatives almost see tham as saints in the sense that their vision cannot be modified our updated. The founding fathers certainly couldn’t foresee how the 20th and 21st century would pan out so how can we expect that the architecture concived then would be fully applicable today?
Steve,
do I need points for these? When I had skyped with Vera earlier this year, she suspected that I have probably not been credited yet with the points for the German podcasts I made last year. I never bothered because I never needed the points. If I’d like to uise them for these discussions, can I claim them now?
Thanks,
Friedemann
Yes all discussions on the system require points. On the other hand you could offer German discussions.
With regard to the content you created, please remind me. What was the name of the content? Are you identified as the provider? If you are, you should be accumulating points based on usage.
Steve,
my content are “lingq podcasts” which can be downloaded from iTunes and I believe lingq is the provider. According to what Vera told me, in this case I should receive some hundred points or so.
Wasn’t Jefferson adamant about the separation of church and state?
Can you identify which podcasts you did, do you know the number? You can also email me.
Ironically the names that Jill mentioned were all deists at best, and all had very anti-christian things to say. Washington was perhaps the nearest to being Christian, but he hardly invoked god, preferring to use words like ‘Providence’ and ‘Destiny’, ways that would be considered weak liberal Christianity today.
John Adams made multiple comments on the Christian church being what was wrong with the world, and not only was Jefferson a huuuge proponent of separating church and state he re-wrote the gospels taking out all of Jesus’ supposed miracles and only kept the moral teachings, he also told more than one friend that Gnostic gospels (The Book of Thomas ect which were rejected by the group that declared John, Mark, Luke and Matthew to be the word of God in the 300s),were just as important as the moral popular ‘god breathed’ ones, saying something like that today in the American Christian world would also get you shunned. Benjamin Franklin imaged building a church that accepted all faiths, not only Christian, can you imagine Pat Robertson doing that?
The point is that the founding fathers of the United States were very much part of the Enlightenment, this country was very lucky to have such a set of polymaths alive at the same time, that mixed with a natural born leader and a little luck (or Providence??) created this country, the doctrine that the founding fathers evangelical Christians is simply wrong, the country was founded on innate principles found in all of us, even if we can’t always follow them correctly…
I visited Monticello recently and was told that Jefferson read the Bible every night. At least, he knew what was in the Bible, whether he believed it or not.
I’m not a fan of Glenn Beck. I find him boring, but I do respect his right to express his opinion and I agree with Jillisa that freedom of religion/expression is something we hold dear. I guess for that reason I see atheists (even though I think they have the right to be that way) as potential enemies of religious freedom and possibly, by extension, intellectual freedom.
@Mait
I must beg to differ on that point. Someone said that “Freedom of Religion also means Freedom FROM Religion.” I agree with him on that. I think that atheism should not be designated as the enemy of intellectual freedom. If we remember the cases of witch hunting, religious fanatics are more antagonistic than atheists to religious freedom, by extension, to intellectual freedom.
Mait,
I think you’re maybe stretching it a little here. I expressed my disgust at some of what GB and other prominent US conservatives have to say (see the quotes in my post above). I would certainly not call for getting rid of freedom of speech.
As to tolerance: Do you think tolerance is telling a gay couple they cannot marry because someone in an old book has written that some higher being we don’t know exists disaproves of that?
Friedemann
Friedemann,
"Why are American conservatives so hung up about gay marriage as opposed to the real issues, for examples the wasteful nature of the US economy? "
I think that marriage constitutes the fundamental structure of our society, and it is not a matter of religion, in my opinion.
Not to get away from my polite tone, but I don’t appreciate my words being misconstrued, especially from a native English speaker. I did not say that the founding fathers were “Evangelical Christians.” I said this country was founded on Christian principles. That absolutely cannot be denied, and if you do, then you are just not informed. Doo, the argument about Jefferson advocating the Separation of Church and State is one of the oldest in the book. Of course he advocated it because he didn’t want us to become like England (where they all came from) where the Church of England was mandated as the religion. There is nothing in the Constitution about religion not being a part of Government. Jefferson wrote about that subject in a personal letter. The beauty of our founding fathers’ desire was that people here could worship just as they chose, not having it mandated by the Government. Why were prayers said by Presidents if God was never to be mentioned? But with that said, they all still held to the basics of the 10 Commandments (which are still present today in the Supreme Court building) and other Christian principles, whether they were true followers of Jesus Christ or not. On a side note, true Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with the God who chose to reveal Himself to man. It is not based on man’s modeling of it, and believe me, I will stand with you in saying some have not represented Christianity well, and I do not in any way stand with them. Just because someone does something in the name of Christianity doesn’t make them a Christian. I happen to think that “old book” is the Truth, and you can agree or not. See, isn’t it fun to be able to discuss important topics? It makes life interesting. 
Also, quote from James Madison (founding father): “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments.”
Patrick Henry (founding father): “It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
These are just 2 examples of my point of the USA being founded on “Christian Principle.” I could have pasted a hundred more.
Take a look at this. “Glenn Beck’s ‘Honor’ rally: What you missed” Glenn Beck's 'Honor' rally: What you missed - CNN.com
Jillisa,
let’s say the founding fathers were guided by Christian principles. Why should that model be the ideal one in 2010? Wouldn’t it be better to base a modern pluralistic democratic country on the principles of tolerance, democracy and scientific reasoning? The US has become a very diverse country including people praying to other Gods or no God at all. A large number of Americans reject well established scientific findings about the genesis of our species because they don’t fit their beliefs. Others belittle environmental challenges because they believe the end of times are near anyway. Why would a return to Christian beliefs make the US a better country? I think the only thing that can help us in these challenging times are technology and humanistic values.
Friedemann
Patrick Henry was a religious man, he was part of the opposition though, he had a larger part in the revolution than he really did when the government was set up, except that he was in the fight against the constitution and demanded a bill of rights (still played a big part, not saying he didn’t, but not like Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, ect)
Madison is a founding father that you can find quotes that make him sound one way and make him sound another. I sorry if I misunderstood “Christian Principles”, of course the quotes you found do imply evangelical Christianity. I’m afraid I will have trouble with this discussion if we’re allowed to move back and forth (or if you quote two of the lesser known,but still wonderful Madison is a personal favorite of mine, founding fathers that weren’t on your original list) between what I assumed was implied, that the conservatism today somehow correlates with what the founding fathers believed, or at least the ones you listed.
“Christian Principles” would have to be better defined, it seems we’re more allowed to pick and choose when we use vague words like that. So, Thou Shall Not Kill, okay certainly a “Christian Principle”, but also a Muslim, Buddhist, and basic principle of society, but yes still Christian. What about not worshiping another God? I’m allowed to worship anything I want in the US, so that’s not Judeo-Christian, coveting my neighbors wife? I’m allowed to do that too, it’s not illegal (and very hard not to do in Vegas I might add, but I still love my wife). What about commit adultery, “Christian Principle”, but not illegal here.
My point is, that founding fathers played politics too, there were certainly some who invoked God publicly and didn’t really care but were playing politician, and some who really did believe, just like today, but saying that the country was built on “Christian Principles” is misleading, certainly you can say it, but then if we can pick and choose what principles we want and don’t want then I could say it was founded on any number of religion’s principles.
My only point is, that this country was founded on secular principles, some of which correlated with a lot of “Christian Principles”, for a new country who’s population was in large portion Christian, but who’s founding fathers were in large part, part of the Enlightenment and at best deists who leaned toward Christianity traditionally.
I did not mean to misquote you, but the conversation jumped from today’s American Conservatism to what the main founding fathers believed, I hope you understand how I could have been mislead.
@ytk "I must beg to differ on that point. Someone said that “Freedom of Religion also means Freedom FROM Religion.” I agree with him on that. I think that atheism should not be designated as the enemy of intellectual freedom. If we remember the cases of witch hunting, religious fanatics are more antagonistic than atheists to religious freedom, by extension, to intellectual freedom. "
Not only do I agree with what you said, it was said in perfect English. Have you morphed into a native speaker of English?
Thank you, Steve.
I had a look at some youtube videos of the restore honour gab-fest and as a non-religious person, and a non-American, I find this rally scary.