The Founding Fathers

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pat wrote:

Well if your are worried over acts of evil, the good news is that no one group of people is absolved…Religious or otherwise. People kill each other all the time. Demonizing all organized religions for sins of it’s past is not necessarily fair.
[/quote]

I understand that. But a tremendous amount of blood is spilled over it, remarkable when you consider the origins of religion (that their initial teachers or prophets teach nonviolence).

That blood is not worth being spilt.

I don’t think so.

Organized religion is famous for wanting only its own point of view heard. As Pookie said, the Church has only now come about to the realization that they simply cannot deny evolution anymore. They wanted to burn Galileo, and how many others, for their advances in science.

Organized religion and science are diametrically opposed, and I believe that the world would be a better, more technologically advanced, less judgmental society if the question of one’s god did not come up all the time.

Religion cannot have enough blamed on it. It is, of course, the opiate of the people… just another method of control. Once again, really a shame that is has devolved into this after Jesus’ incredible teachings (whom I cannot say how much I admire).

62

And, by the way, my question remains.

Why is America, after such enlightened beginnings, where we are now with religion? Why is this country so obsessed with “god-fearing” men, even though those who started it clearly weren’t that concerned?

63

One could ask what terrors scientists and science have given us. The nuclear bomb, chemical and biological weapons, the killing of human beings still in the womb…

Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism (opiate of the people), and yes, even Freedom and Democracy, have claimed their share of victims. Now each person here will differ on what justifies the spilling of blood, but that doesn’t do the victims much good.

64

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And, by the way, my question remains.

Why is America, after such enlightened beginnings, where we are now with religion? Why is this country so obsessed with “god-fearing” men, even though those who started it clearly weren’t that concerned?[/quote]

Were they actually not “god-fearing” men?

65

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Paine? Not sure I’d even call him a Founder, but he was maybe the worst of the bunch. Anyone cheerleading for the French Revolution was on the wrong side, basically.

Please. Absolute bullshit.

  1. Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain. - John Adams.

The revolution doesn’t happen without Common Sense. And on top that, the French Revolution is one of the greatest, most beautiful events in human history. How it ended up was, ironically, bloody and terrible, but it shook monarchies everywhere to the bone and was the great mover in the general movement towards Republics over monarchies (aside from our own revolution).
[/quote]

Nothing “ironic” about it. Bloodshed and tyranny are pretty much the inevitable result of utopian movements the world over. Which is why the American Revolution was a completely different creature from the French one, regardless of what unhinged people like Paine thought. I’d like to think he learned his lesson in Paris, but I don’t think that was the case

And you have a real hangup about monarchies. I don’t have any big desire for one, but would you rather live under the English, Spanish, or Danish monarchy, or in the Venezuelan or Russian republic? Populist demagoguery (like say, the French Revolution) is often far, far worse than even most absolute monarchies.

[quote]
I believe Washington went to Episcopalian (basically Anglican) services, but like you said, was known for refusing to kneel in church.

And not taking communion. He does not strike me as overly religious in any sense.

As for today, I think you are way off. We may have a relatively rare public piety thing going on with national politicians, but if you look at the actual substance of American religion, it is less Christian than it has ever been. Google “Moral Therapeutic Deism”, I can email you the original article as a pdf if you want. That, increasingly, is America’s religion. Not Christianity.

Depends who you ask.

There is a reason that Evangelical christians had a takeover in the last ten years.

Thankfully, it has been taken back. But there are certainly enough Bible literalists and one issue voters who depend on their church to make their decision for them for me. [/quote]

Biblical literalism/fundamentalism is actually a very modern addition, circa 19th century, and kind of a result of religion trying to ape science. Allegorical reading of the Bible goes back to the beginning of the Church.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
One could ask what terrors scientists and science have given us. The nuclear bomb, chemical and biological weapons, the killing of human beings still in the womb…

Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism (opiate of the people), and yes, even Freedom and Democracy, have claimed their share of victims. [/quote]

Actually, more than their share. I’m betting atheist utopian movements have claimed more victims in wars than religion. Particularly if you realize that religion is often a gloss that covers the real causes and hatreds of a conflict.

67

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Paine? Not sure I’d even call him a Founder, but he was maybe the worst of the bunch. Anyone cheerleading for the French Revolution was on the wrong side, basically.

Are you willing to apply that marker to Jefferson as well? He did tell Abigail Adams [paraphrasing] that he’d rather see half the world desolated than for the French Revolution to fail.

mike[/quote]

Jefferson was on the wrong side of that, no question.

68

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Particularly if you realize that religion is often a gloss that covers the real causes and hatreds of a conflict.[/quote]

Which is why I do favor a “seperation of church and state” (though not to the nearly paranoid level that pops up these days). I don’t want governments corrupting my religious institutions.

69

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And, by the way, my question remains.

Why is America, after such enlightened beginnings, where we are now with religion? Why is this country so obsessed with “god-fearing” men, even though those who started it clearly weren’t that concerned?[/quote]

Because most other countries have turned to idolatry whereas America has not.

Yet.

She´s on her way though.

70

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Paine? Not sure I’d even call him a Founder, but he was maybe the worst of the bunch. Anyone cheerleading for the French Revolution was on the wrong side, basically.

Are you willing to apply that marker to Jefferson as well? He did tell Abigail Adams [paraphrasing] that he’d rather see half the world desolated than for the French Revolution to fail.

mike

Jefferson was on the wrong side of that, no question.[/quote]

He could hardly foresee what would become of it and the old regime was no longer acceptable either.

71

[quote]Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Even so, I find it hard to believe that the Deists among them would object to local and self-sufficient schools teaching creationism, while applauding efforts to instruct other peoples children in the use of condoms, homosexual relationships, etc.,

That would be great. The country would be full of more morons than it is now.

And schools rarely “instruct people on homosexual relationships.”

You have a very warped perception of things.

We’ll see more and more “King and King” incidents. Somebody is going to indoctrinate children with your tax dollars. They want to instruct the children of evangelicals in evolution, condomns, and “diversity.” In turn, evangelicals want sex ed. and moral questions left to parents, with creationism at least instructed as an alternative. Just depends on who has the political strength at the time.[/quote]

theres already too many irresponsible parents who won’t teach anything about sex to their kids. i dont see how providing them with even less information is a better move.

72

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And, by the way, my question remains.

Why is America, after such enlightened beginnings, where we are now with religion? Why is this country so obsessed with “god-fearing” men, even though those who started it clearly weren’t that concerned?[/quote]

One factor is certainly the lack of good education. People who have little schooling have a hard time understanding modern scientific theories (or even the base scientific process itself). Everyone, though, even a pre-schooler can understand the story in Genesis and most of the popular fables in the Old Testament (the flood, Jonas in the fish, etc.)

Now, if you’ve spent most of your life believing that those stories are true, that they actually, factually happened, it is a very large mental leap to later on try to reconcile that worldview with science that say that the universe is billions of years old, that for most of it’s history, man didn’t exist and that instead of being created in God’s image directly by God (at least, for men… Women are rib-people) you have to accept that chimpanzees are your not-so-distant cousins with which you share a common ancestor. In fact, you share a common ancestor with cows, rats, dung beetles (a long, long time ago, but still…)

Ironically, most hard-line creationists want to control education to ensure that their view is at least presented on an equal footing with the scientific one; and preferably the only one presented at all. Exactly the opposite of what you need if you wish for children to learn “good” science and how it is actually done.

It is interesting that these people are so adamant about believing the “literal truths” of the Bible, but are completely opposed to accepting the “truth” revealed in Nature. The book is, after all, written by men; even if inspired by God. It’s been copied down - with errors, mistakes and willful changes - along the way; translated many times, etc. Nature, on the other hand, is (for those who believe) 100% God made. You’d think that the conclusions reached from Natural observation would trump the book every time, but instead, incredibly convoluted pretzel logic - and outright lies, when nothing else will do - is used to make sure that nothing in Nature can ever contradict “the Book.”

With a mindset like that, there is simply nothing to be done to convince these people of any scientific theory they want to reject. At best, you can only insure they’re kept out of the public sphere as much as possible and that they don’t get to make decisions where large numbers of people are affected and for which science prescribes the opposite of their beliefs.

73

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Biblical literalism/fundamentalism is actually a very modern addition, circa 19th century, and kind of a result of religion trying to ape science. Allegorical reading of the Bible goes back to the beginning of the Church.[/quote]

Actually, you’ll find biblical literalism waay back. The Puritans gave birth to the modern fundamentalism found today. The Biblical literalism movement is from the “better safe than sorry” movement when church’s were splitting from the Catholic Church.

74

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Paine? Not sure I’d even call him a Founder, but he was maybe the worst of the bunch. Anyone cheerleading for the French Revolution was on the wrong side, basically.

Are you willing to apply that marker to Jefferson as well? He did tell Abigail Adams [paraphrasing] that he’d rather see half the world desolated than for the French Revolution to fail.

mike

Jefferson was on the wrong side of that, no question.[/quote]

I beg to differ…Having lived in the time and not knowing the result would be a tyrant like Napoleon, I would have been all for the French Revolution too.

75

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t want governments corrupting my religious institutions.[/quote]

And I don’t want religious institutions corrupting government, so we’re on the same page.

76

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

Nothing “ironic” about it. Bloodshed and tyranny are pretty much the inevitable result of utopian movements the world over. Which is why the American Revolution was a completely different creature from the French one, regardless of what unhinged people like Paine thought. I’d like to think he learned his lesson in Paris, but I don’t think that was the case
[/quote]

I hate to tell you, but in 1789, there hadn’t been a shitload of utopian movements. There was not really any way to tell what was coming down the pike.

On top of that, the Napoleonic wars spread further the ideas that came out of the French revolution. It was a history changing event, and certainly not all bad.

And Paine was not “unhinged.” He wasn’t Nietzsche, give me a break.

You’re god fuckin damn right I have a hangup about monarchies, I’m American. Any cocksucker that seizes power, then claims the power of god in order to instate a hereditary line into ruling the country… yea, that pisses me off just a little bit.

I don’t give two fucks if you think it’s far worse, because you’re taking the names that the countries give themselves. Russia isn’t a republic, neither is Venezuela, no matter what they say. And even thought they’re figureheads in other countries, it’s still ridiculous that they are the Paris Hiltons of their nations. They have gone from evil to castrated.

[quote]

Biblical literalism/fundamentalism is actually a very modern addition, circa 19th century, and kind of a result of religion trying to ape science. Allegorical reading of the Bible goes back to the beginning of the Church.[/quote]

there you go. Backwards again.

77

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

oh wow really, funny most fo the best medical/science institutes in the US are Jesuit or Catholic in origin.
Yeah good point.

I have no idea if that’s true. And “in origin” doesn’t mean “still is”, either.

sorry but the whole christians are dumb thing is getting old, what most people fall to accept is that many of the concepts actually tought of evolution are just as full of holes as the concept of religion or god, and need the same type of faith to get te the answers.

I am not calling Christians dumb. What I am saying is that I can’t respect people that reject a scientific hypothesis that are based on the extensive collection of empirical data and the interpretation thereof in favor of saying “the 2,000 year old book said that’s not how it happened.”

And no, the concept of religion of religion or god is not full of holes- it’s a gigantic fucking hole itself. There’s no proof, there’s no evidence, there’s nothing to be tested, gathered, or experimented with. It’s just my word against yours. That’s not acceptable to me.

Hence why when I started this thread, I said that I was surprised that evidently, many of the founding fathers (and other spectacularly genius minds of all generations) have seen these magnificent holes in theology, and sometimes rejected religion altogether, although they did not dismiss the basic idea that God could, in some form or another, exist.

privatizing schools is a good idea, the only people that dont think so are ones who don’t care enought about their children to do what it takes to get them a good education.

how is that for a generalization for you.

I am not sure whether privatization is good or not. But you need to learn where the damn shift key and the periods are. You’re driving me fucking nuts. [/quote]

Yeah sorry, I do this on breaks at work for the most part, need a break from the monotony of every day scientific testing and statistical analysis, so I relax on here.

But means I have to try to cram as much in as fast as possible doesn’t leave much time for proofreading, and I can’t use firefox.

I’ve worked for about 8 yrs in comparative genomics and proteomics, and now work in vaccine discovery. All of the advances I see on a day to day basis consistanty oppose even the most modern/adaptive theories of evolution. That is my take, so just from an analytical view the concepts just don’t jive.

Any good scientist knows you have to remove all your internal biased from you experimentation. But most evolutionary scientist don’t so in my mind that makes them bad scientist.

My beliefs are my beliefs and have no place in scientific testing. They are two separate ideas.

and BW, you do realize you are insinuating I am not a credible biologist right?

78

[quote]pookie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And, by the way, my question remains.

Why is America, after such enlightened beginnings, where we are now with religion? Why is this country so obsessed with “god-fearing” men, even though those who started it clearly weren’t that concerned?

One factor is certainly the lack of good education. People who have little schooling have a hard time understanding modern scientific theories (or even the base scientific process itself). Everyone, though, even a pre-schooler can understand the story in Genesis and most of the popular fables in the Old Testament (the flood, Jonas in the fish, etc.)

Now, if you’ve spent most of your life believing that those stories are true, that they actually, factually happened, it is a very large mental leap to later on try to reconcile that worldview with science that say that the universe is billions of years old, that for most of it’s history, man didn’t exist and that instead of being created in God’s image directly by God (at least, for men… Women are rib-people) you have to accept that chimpanzees are your not-so-distant cousins with which you share a common ancestor. In fact, you share a common ancestor with cows, rats, dung beetles (a long, long time ago, but still…)

Ironically, most hard-line creationists want to control education to ensure that their view is at least presented on an equal footing with the scientific one; and preferably the only one presented at all. Exactly the opposite of what you need if you wish for children to learn “good” science and how it is actually done.

It is interesting that these people are so adamant about believing the “literal truths” of the Bible, but are completely opposed to accepting the “truth” revealed in Nature. The book is, after all, written by men; even if inspired by God. It’s been copied down - with errors, mistakes and willful changes - along the way; translated many times, etc. Nature, on the other hand, is (for those who believe) 100% God made. You’d think that the conclusions reached from Natural observation would trump the book every time, but instead, incredibly convoluted pretzel logic - and outright lies, when nothing else will do - is used to make sure that nothing in Nature can ever contradict “the Book.”

With a mindset like that, there is simply nothing to be done to convince these people of any scientific theory they want to reject. At best, you can only insure they’re kept out of the public sphere as much as possible and that they don’t get to make decisions where large numbers of people are affected and for which science prescribes the opposite of their beliefs.
[/quote]

You are assuming that the politicians and leaders that aren’t out there pushing religious views are instead pushing pure science. Guess what, they aren’t. Instead they push for the legislation that enforces their own morals, world views, and politically biased “science”.

Is pushing religious legislation wrong? yes. But I don’t see it as any worse than the agendas anyone else in Washington is pushing.

This is more of an argument to keep the politicians out of the education systems altogether.

79

Bill Maher: Do you believe in evolution?
Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor: You know, my, uh… first, I don’t know. Clearly, the scientific community’s a little divided on the specifics of that, and I understand that…
Maher: I don’t think they are.
Senator Pryor: No, no, I… well…
Maher: I think they pretty much agree.
Senator Pryor: I don’t know how it all happened, I mean, I’m perfectly willing to accept any…
Maher: But it couldn’t possibly have been Adam and Eve five thousand years ago with a talking snake in a garden, could it?
Senator Pryor: Well, it could have possibly been that.
Maher: Come on. See, this is my problem. You are a senator. You are one of the very few people who are really running this country. It worries me that people are running my country who think… who believe in a talking snake.
Senator Pryor: You don’t have to pass an I.Q. test to be in the Senate, though.

80

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Bill Maher: Do you believe in evolution?
Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor: You know, my, uh… first, I don’t know. Clearly, the scientific community’s a little divided on the specifics of that, and I understand that…
Maher: I don’t think they are.
Senator Pryor: No, no, I… well…
Maher: I think they pretty much agree.
Senator Pryor: I don’t know how it all happened, I mean, I’m perfectly willing to accept any…
Maher: But it couldn’t possibly have been Adam and Eve five thousand years ago with a talking snake in a garden, could it?
Senator Pryor: Well, it could have possibly been that.
Maher: Come on?see, this is my problem. You are a senator. You are one of the very few people who are really running this country. It worries me that people are running my country who think… who believe in a talking snake.
Senator Pryor: You don’t have to pass an I.Q. test to be in the Senate, though.[/quote]

Actually it was a talking snake WITH LEGS. Get it right.