Early American History was Intertwined with Faith

[Kuzcotopia]

It's application was fake not that what happened is fake.

How so? You may need to take a little time to explain. I am not impressed by the smiley face emoji as an explanation.

I'll show you:

Sasquaches are real.

See? Doesn't do much for the argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

Another instance of fake news

Sounds more and more like Donald Trump with every post.

 

[Aldrnari]

Aye, and non Christians be damned. Up here in the NW native Americans were subject to Christian "boarding schools" where their language, religion, stories, and culture were systematically erased. All that remains now are ghosts of a rich and prolific history.

This seems to be a common theme in christian history, from ancient times to modern day...

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, Jefferson understood the influence of the Jews on the Gospel, and did the same thing Marcion did in the 2nd century. He removed the Jewish portions (orthodoxy) and concentrated on the gospel (gnosis). He understood dualism and believed more gnostic.

So two very different things here. Jefferson's view and Marcion's view don't coincide. Marcion, in the 2nd Century, believed that the God of the OT was a different God from what Jesus and Paul taught. Marcion was basically a polytheist. One who took Jesus and Paul out of their Jewish context. However, we have no idea what was in Marcion's Gospel as we don't have it.

With Jefferson, he had no problem with the Jews. The portions of the Gospel he kept are Jewish thoughts. Rabbi Nuesner states that what's left are Torah teachings. And he wasn't really gnostic at all.

More so, there is no evidence for your claim. Again, Jefferson recorded his reasons. None of them had to do with not liking the influence the Jews had on the Gospels.

 

[Phantasman]

So two very different things here. Jefferson's view and Marcion's view don't coincide. Marcion, in the 2nd Century, believed that the God of the OT was a different God from what Jesus and Paul taught. Marcion was basically a polytheist. One who took Jesus and Paul out of their Jewish context. However, we have no idea what was in Marcion's Gospel as we don't have it.

With Jefferson, he had no problem with the Jews. The portions of the Gospel he kept are Jewish thoughts. Rabbi Nuesner states that what's left are Torah teachings. And he wasn't really gnostic at all.

More so, there is no evidence for your claim. Again, Jefferson recorded his reasons. None of them had to do with not liking the influence the Jews had on the Gospels.

Evidence or not, I can only go on what's available in print.

"He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews", and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity". Jefferson explains that he does not have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish it." - WIKI

Wiki goes on to say that Jefferson took a scalpel to the Canon gospels, which is the same thing Marcion did with Luke.

Persoanlly, I really don't care as deism was a popular 17th 18th century belief system. It just appears ironic, that Jefferson, in some ways, was more concerned with the added content of the orthodox, though he clearly didn't care for Paul. Attorneys need to focus on physical law, and leave the spiritual alone, IMO.

 

[shunyadragon]

I acknowledge that Christianity played role in the philosophy and beliefs of the founding fathers, but the sources that emphasis too much Christian Theism as the dominant influence on the founding fathers neglect the very strong influence of Renaissance Humanism on the founding fathers.

From: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html

"Humanism is the term generally applied to the predominant social philosophy and intellectual and literary currents of the period from 1400 to 1650. The return to favor of the pagan classics stimulated the philosophy of secularism, the appreciation of worldly pleasures, and above all intensified the assertion of personal independence and individual expression. Zeal for the classics was a result as well as a cause of the growing secular view of life. Expansion of trade, growth of prosperity and luxury, and widening social contacts generated interest in worldly pleasures, in spite of formal allegiance to ascetic Christian doctrine. Men thus affected -- the humanists -- welcomed classical writers who revealed similar social values and secular attitudes.

Historians are pretty much agreed on the general outlines of those mental attitudes and scholarly interests which are assembled under the rubric of humanism. The most fundamental point of agreement is that the humanist mentality stood at a point midway between medieval supernaturalism and the modern scientific and critical attitude. Medievalists see humanism as the terminal product of the Middle Ages. Modern historians are perhaps more apt to view humanism as the germinal period of modernism."

 

[tytlyf]

I acknowledge that Christianity played role in the philosophy and beliefs of the founding fathers, but the sources that emphasis too much Christian Theism as the dominant influence on the founding fathers neglect the very strong influence of Renaissance Humanism on the founding fathers.

From: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/humanism.html

"Humanism is the term generally applied to the predominant social philosophy and intellectual and literary currents of the period from 1400 to 1650. The return to favor of the pagan classics stimulated the philosophy of secularism, the appreciation of worldly pleasures, and above all intensified the assertion of personal independence and individual expression. Zeal for the classics was a result as well as a cause of the growing secular view of life. Expansion of trade, growth of prosperity and luxury, and widening social contacts generated interest in worldly pleasures, in spite of formal allegiance to ascetic Christian doctrine. Men thus affected -- the humanists -- welcomed classical writers who revealed similar social values and secular attitudes.

Historians are pretty much agreed on the general outlines of those mental attitudes and scholarly interests which are assembled under the rubric of humanism. The most fundamental point of agreement is that the humanist mentality stood at a point midway between medieval supernaturalism and the modern scientific and critical attitude. Medievalists see humanism as the terminal product of the Middle Ages. Modern historians are perhaps more apt to view humanism as the germinal period of modernism."

Bingo. Many were secularists fleeing religious persecution to create their own secular society. And today we have secular America. Unfortunately, religious people are trying to take over our government and introduce religious law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Funny, it doesn't seem to be working that way. Actually, it was set up as "freedom of religion" (not freedom from religion) whether Catholic or Protestant... secularism is what is changing things.

And, yes, it was a strawman

Freedom of religion and secularism describe the same thing.

And freedom from religion - i.e. the freedom not to have other people's religion imposed on you - is necessary for freedom of religion - i.e. the freedom to believe and worship as you please.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bingo. Many were secularists fleeing religious persecution to create their own secular society. And today we have secular America. Unfortunately, religious people are trying to take over our government and introduce religious law.

And many - e.g. the Puritans - were religious extremists fleeing what they saw as too permissive a society in order to make little oppressive theocracies in America. The federal government eventually said to them, effectively, "whoa, whoa - dial it back."

 

[tytlyf]

And many - e.g. the Puritans - were religious extremists fleeing what they saw as too permissive a society in order to make little oppressive theocracies in America. The federal government eventually said to them, effectively, "whoa, whoa - dial it back."

I think the celebration of christmas was banned in certain areas back in the day. Have you noticed the decline of America once god has entered the scene? God on the money, pledge, etc. Very un-American.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the celebration of christmas was banned in certain areas back in the day.

... by other Christians, because they saw it Christmas celebrations as heretical according to their beliefs.

There's no greater threat to religious freedom than a religious believer of a different persuasion who has the power to use the government to enforce what he believes. This is why secularism and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand.

Have you noticed the decline of America once god has entered the scene? God on the money, pledge, etc. Very un-American.

What do you mean by "decline of America?"

And I think God has been "on the scene" in America for a very long time. Just look at all the states that have faith tests for public office on their books. These tests were made void by the 14th Amendment, but they still give us a reminder of past attitudes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Freedom of religion and secularism describe the same thing.

And freedom from religion - i.e. the freedom not to have other people's religion imposed on you - is necessary for freedom of religion - i.e. the freedom to believe and worship as you please.

There is an interesting side note here: Declaring oneself openly Deist or heaven forbid atheist could result in political suicide, and possible prison even in the colonies. Things were not completely free in the colonies, though a few brave souls did like; Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen. Both lost any hope of a political career, were ridiculed even at the time of their death, and only 6 people attended the funeral of Thomas Paine.

 

[Kenny]

Except it doesn't mention that Abraham really did anything with the church. It even says this: Abraham Lincoln did not formally join the church, but his wife became a member on April 13, 1852. Mary is the only Lincoln who seemed to do anything with the church aside from baptism and funerals.

I'm sorry... he attended the church.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry... he attended the church.

Like many of the 18th and 19th he was attendant of a church, but expressed Deist beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Freedom of religion and secularism describe the same thing.

And freedom from religion - i.e. the freedom not to have other people's religion imposed on you - is necessary for freedom of religion - i.e. the freedom to believe and worship as you please.

Not all secularism translates as freedom 'of' religion. There are significant secular governments the tried to brutally enforce freedom 'from' religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not all secularism translates as freedom 'of' religion. There are significant secular governments the tried to brutally enforce freedom 'from' religion.

Secularism is neutrality toward religion: no special treatment - positive or negative - based on a person’s religion. A government that tries to oppress religion or religious people is not neutral toward religion.

 

[Kenny]

Freedom of religion and secularism describe the same thing.

And freedom from religion - i.e. the freedom not to have other people's religion imposed on you - is necessary for freedom of religion - i.e. the freedom to believe and worship as you please.

I just saw an attorney group at a conference (one of many) that supports freedom of relgion. A two inch binder of cases, in just one year, that they had to fight is proof enough that freedom of religion and secularism are not the same thing.

As one 5 year old was told "you can't pray over your food in school" and an elderly person in a rehab facifilty who had their food taken away because he prayed as they said "It is because of the separation of church and state, I would disagree with your position

 

[shunyadragon]

I just saw an attorney group at a conference (one of many) that supports freedom of relgion. A two inch binder of cases, in just one year, that they had to fight is proof enough that freedom of religion and secularism are not the same thing.

As one 5 year old was told "you can't pray over your food in school" and an elderly person in a rehab facifilty who had their food taken away because he prayed as they said "It is because of the separation of church and state, I would disagree with your position

This is your habit as in the past to assert undocumented anecdotal stories to support your agenda as with biased version of evolution/creation 'story' of a student in the past which was not accurate.

Nonetheless I also disagree with @9-10ths_Penguin.

 

[Kenny]

This is your habit as in the past to assert undocumented anecdotal stories to support your agenda as with biased version of evolution/creation 'story' of a student in the past which was not accurate.

Nonetheless I also disagree with @9-10ths_Penguin.

hardly undocumented... though I understand why you would think so. Are you even in the circle of those who have to fight for religious liberty?

In as much as these are litigated cases, and there is a two inch binder for just one year, I will still stand on my premise.

Lunch Lady Told 5 Year Old She Can’t Pray Before Eating… See What The Girl Said
student-ordered-to-remove-cross-necklace-at-sonoma-state-university
Senior citizens told they can't pray before meals

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just saw an attorney group at a conference (one of many) that supports freedom of relgion. A two inch binder of cases, in just one year, that they had to fight is proof enough that freedom of religion and secularism are not the same thing.

As one 5 year old was told "you can't pray over your food in school" and an elderly person in a rehab facifilty who had their food taken away because he prayed as they said "It is because of the separation of church and state, I would disagree with your position

- the situation you describe isn't secularism.
- whatever actually happened, I don't trust you to describe it accurately.